Monica Pignotti: Your supporter, Eldon Braun is a THIEF
f squared
He stole Harry Palmer's Avatar Course materials. The joke was, and is,
on Eldon, as these are as worthless as the Scientology materials and
sensory deprivation tank dementia Palmer used to construct them.
Palmer, another fool and thief, thought Avatar had value. He sued
Braun and won.
Braun fled to France.
For some reason, Braun defends Monica Pignotti.
Monica Pignotti associates with some interesting people:
Larry Sarner, who "invented" a non working voting machine. His
investors thought they had been defrauded and sued Sarner. Sarner's
defense was that they were conspiring against him. Sarner lost.
Linda Rosa, who is Sarner's wife. Together, they write a blog on child
torture.
Jean Mercer, who is an unlicensed psychologist. Her lack of licensing
is an issue right now in New Jersey.
Charly D. Miller, self-proclaimed expert and travel writer. She has
been disqualified as an expert and her fees found excessive by the
courts.
Monica rants and raves about various therapists. For "evidence" she
points to websites maintained by their detractors. Has she verified
all of the claims on these sites? Is it possible she is ghostwriting
them?
C'mon Eldon, hit me with your best shot.
Eldon
You've cross-posted this crap to five newsgroups, idiot. That alone
should convince everyone who reads it that you're a kook. Well, at
least the time you spend spamming usenet is that much less time you
can spend abusing developmentally challenged kids with "attachment
therapy" or whatever you call your brand of it.
Monica Pignotti
My evidence is quotes from the people I criticize that they themselves
wrote:
http://www.childrenintherapy.org/proponents/federici.html
Speaking of trouble with licensing boards:
http://www.childrenintherapy.org/proponents/feinberg.html
http://www.childrenintherapy.org/proponents/cline.html
http://www.childrenintherapy.org/proponents/randolph.html
http://www.childrenintherapy.org/proponents/boeding.html
Looks like this one has some beliefs in common with Dianetics:
"# Disruptions that result from the break in the mother-infant
attachment can have many causal factors, ranging from the obvious —
such as the primal wound of adoption … to the more subtle, and,
therefore, more difficult-to-detect factors such as … birth trauma…
"— The Love Disorder (1998), p. 51
# Have a working knowledge of the causal conditions that disrupt
healthy attachment… Prenatal conditions: wanted or unwanted pregnancy…
birth trauma…
— The Love Disorder (1998), p. 88
"# Much of the difficulty that we see in foster and adoptive families
occurs when the traumatic experiences with the birth situation … are
transferred by the child from the original sources of the trauma onto
the adoptive or foster parents…
— The Love Disorder (1998), p. 140
Would you like to learn more? See:
http://www.childrenintherapy.org/proponents/
Jean Mercer is not in trouble with the NJ Licensing board because she
is not a clinical psychologist and does not have a clinical practice
and she is not under their jurisdiction -- only clinical psychologists
are under their jurisdiction. As a developmental psychologist, she
does not need to be licensed as there is no licensure for
developmental psychologists. She is far more qualified to criticize
the serious design flaws in the so-called "research" of AT proponents
than they are. Also, the court system in California recognized her as
an expert witness in an AT-related case and she is highly qualified to
comment on issues of child development.
As for Larry Sarner, you haven't provided us with evidence to support
your rants against him. All you produced was a lawsuit where he was
the plaintiff and he has never been charged or convicted of fraud, so
once again you make claims with no evidence to support them, just like
you do for the bogus therapies you so rabidly defend.
Eldon Braun was never convicted of "theft" so again, you lie and
distort. It was a civil, not a criminal case.
Monica
Eldon
>
> Looks like this one has some beliefs in common with Dianetics:
> "# Disruptions that result from the break in the mother-infant
> attachment can have many causal factors, ranging from the obvious —
> such as the primal wound of adoption … to the more subtle, and,
> therefore, more difficult-to-detect factors such as … birth trauma…
> "— The Love Disorder (1998), p. 51
While we're at it, how about prenatal crack, herion, alcohol, nicotine
and methamphetamine traumas? Not to mention malnutrition? These are
factors that often affect newborns who are later adopted -- after a
stint in an orphanage or foster care.
> # Have a working knowledge of the causal conditions that disrupt
> healthy attachment… Prenatal conditions: wanted or unwanted pregnancy…
> birth trauma…
> — The Love Disorder (1998), p. 88
> "# Much of the difficulty that we see in foster and adoptive families
> occurs when the traumatic experiences with the birth situation … are
> transferred by the child from the original sources of the trauma onto
> the adoptive or foster parents…
> — The Love Disorder (1998), p. 140
Good lord! Kids who were rescued from Romanian orphanages suffered
from many souces of trauma and lots of neglect after birth. This is
just plain ridiculous when applied to adopted children.
didacticderivative
> As for Larry Sarner, you haven't provided us with evidence to support
> your rants against him. All you produced was a lawsuit where he was
> the plaintiff and he has never been charged or convicted of fraud, so
> once again you make claims with no evidence to support them, just like
> you do for the bogus therapies you so rabidly defend.
>
> Eldon Braun was never convicted of "theft" so again, you lie and
> distort. It was a civil, not a criminal case.
>
> Monica
Monica, if you'd take the time to read Peirce, you'd know that one and
seven are not the same.
Here, you will find seven cases involving paragon of inventive wisdom,
Larry Sarner:
http://larrysarnerpseudoscience.wordpress.com/2009/07/15/confounding-the-doubters/
2 bankruptcy cases
4 civil cases
1 appellate case
Sarner, like Braun, was never charged with criminal offenses, but
their defeat in civil matters is undeniable.
Hartley Patterson
>
> On Jul 23, 4:37 pm, Monica Pignotti <pigno...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> > On Jul 23, 8:39 am, f squared <frustrated.flux...@gmail.com> wrote:
alt.religion.scientology,alt.clearing.avatar,alt.atheism,sci.math,sci.me
d
Any chance of you guys not crossposting when replying to this nutter? At
least in ARS we know how to killfile. In places like sci.math and
alt.atheism I'm sure they'd be happier without you spamming them.
--
FREEDOM is a trademark owned by
Religious Technology Center
http://www.newsfrombree.co.uk/stolgy_0.htm
Eldon
wrote:
> EldonB...@aol.com says:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 23, 4:37 pm, Monica Pignotti <pigno...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> > > On Jul 23, 8:39 am, f squared <frustrated.flux...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> alt.religion.scientology,alt.clearing.avatar,alt.atheism,sci.math,sci.me
> d
>
> Any chance of you guys not crossposting when replying to this nutter? At
> least in ARS we know how to killfile. In places like sci.math and
> alt.atheism I'm sure they'd be happier without you spamming them.
Yes, if I happen to check the list, I could certainly remove some
newsgroups from it. But in this case, I wanted to let the folks in the
various other groups know what the nutter was doing.
Monica Pignotti
wrote:
> > As for Larry Sarner, you haven't provided us with evidence to support
> > your rants against him. All you produced was a lawsuit where he was
> > the plaintiff and he has never been charged or convicted of fraud, so
> > once again you make claims with no evidence to support them, just like
> > you do for the bogus therapies you so rabidly defend.
>
> > Eldon Braun was never convicted of "theft" so again, you lie and
> > distort. It was a civil, not a criminal case.
>
> > Monica
>
> Monica, if you'd take the time to read Peirce, you'd know that one and
> seven are not the same.
>
> Here, you will find seven cases involving paragon of inventive wisdom,
> Larry Sarner:
>
>
> 2 bankruptcy cases
> 4 civil cases
> 1 appellate case
>
> Sarner, like Braun, was never charged with criminal offenses, but
> their defeat in civil matters is undeniable.
And 7 bogus irrelevant claims are no better than one bogus, irrelevant
claim. A civil case involving a voting machine has nothing to do with
the topic at hand, which is the bogus therapies you are evading
criticism on, by attempting a smear campaign of anyone who criticizes
you. This is very much like what Scientology does to critics. There
are all kinds of civil cases that are won and lost for all kinds of
reasons and someone losing a civil case is no reason to damn the
person the way you're trying to do. This would only have relevance if
I was basing my conclusions on blind faith in Larry Sarner, which I
had not. I had looked at the evidence and made my own conclusions long
before ever having any contact with Larry Sarner.
The real question is, even if you were to prove that Sarner was 100%
guilty of what you accuse him of (you have not proved this but let's
just assume for the sake of argument that you have) it would not
change the facts one iota, which are the harmful, bogus therapies
being promoted. Here is the really issue, which is not based on any
kind of blind adherence to Sarner or anyone else, but rather, the
words of the therapists you are fighting so hard to evade. The
evidence is there in their own words, no need for blind faith in
anyone. People can look these up and read it for themselves:
http://www.childrenintherapy.org/proponents/
henri
<pign...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
[Irrelevant newsgroups inserted by spamming mental defectives
snipped.]
[Raving lunacy from pathetic idiot snipped.]
>And 7 bogus irrelevant claims are no better than one bogus, irrelevant
>claim. A civil case involving a voting machine has nothing to do with
>the topic at hand, which is the bogus therapies you are evading
>criticism on, by attempting a smear campaign of anyone who criticizes
>you. This is very much like what Scientology does to critics.
If there is anything useful at all in the ravings of these spamming
lunatics, it is that it underscores the similarities between the
Scientology cult and other cults of lunatics and quacks. It is sad
but informative that while normal humans act in many different ways,
it is a characteristic of cults that they generally act like demented
robots, mindlessly doing the same thing over and over again. Even
cults originating from completely different sources, on encountering a
medium like Usenet, act in disturbingly similar patterns. It is as if
they are mentally reduced to the level of insects, only able to
respond identically.
If there was any need to prove that these "Attachment Therapy" cretins
were cultists, they have proven it over and over again with their
mindless cultic behavior.
It's somewhat funny that they don't realize, for even a second, that
their bizarre, subhuman behavior is very self-destructive and
guarantees that anyone watching it who has half a brain realizes that
"Attachment Therapy" is obvious garbage solely because its only
proponents are clearly insane.
Monica Pignotti
> On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 12:34:04 -0700 (PDT), Monica Pignotti
>
Yes, good point. They're providing their own worst evidence.
t_shuffle
"Monica Pignotti" <pign...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:5d3b6b9b-820d-43f1...@w41g2000yqb.googlegroups.com
Monica, you are much too easily trolled.
Barbara Schwarz
Palmer must be a very unprofessional person too that he ever worked
with Eldon Braun. Eldon deserved to be sued but who knows from who
Palmer "borrowed".
**********
Barbara Schwarz
Phil Scott defames L. Ron Hubbard by fabricating the worst kind of
stuff about him.
That's why I don't talk anymore to Phil Scott. He is obsessed with
satan crap and defamation.
--
--
Tilman Joerg Hausherr, from Berlin, Siemens employee webs defamation
on me that he and Korey Jerome Kruse aka Simkatu and
other socks scribbled once on Wikipedia:
http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/media-newsroom/tilman-hausherr/
http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/media-newsroom/tilman-hausherr/
http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/intolerance-hate/whistle-blowers/the-clearwater-letters/tilman-hausherr/
http://bernie.cncfamily.com/sc/kids.htm#Debate_with_Tilman_Hausherr
http://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=Hausherr&btnG=Google+Search&domains=BERNIE.CNCFAMILY.COM&sitesearch=BERNIE.CNCFAMILY.COM
http://www.alarmgermany.org/tilman.htm
http://cyber-stalker-korey-jerome-kruse.blogspot.com/
http://phorums.com.au/archive/index.php/t-156307.html
Monica Pignotti
> "Monica Pignotti" <pigno...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
>
> news:5d3b6b9b-820d-43f1...@w41g2000yqb.googlegroups.com
>
> Monica, you are much too easily trolled.
You know nothing about this situation. I am being targeted by people
who practice bogus "attachment" therapies. That is not a troll or a
delusion. It is very real. Here is some background:
http://childtorture.wordpress.com/2009/03/01/a-letter-from-the-emperor-himself-ladies-gentlemenmister-ronald-federici/
This is not just some random troll. These are people with an agenda
who have tried repeatedly to take down a number of websites that
expose their bogus, dangerous therapies and are very angry that they
have been unsuccessful. That's what this smear campaign is about.
http://www.childrenintherapy.org
for more background.
Eldon
wrote:
> On Jul 25, 11:35 am, "t_shuffle" <thorazineshuf...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > "Monica Pignotti" <pigno...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
>
> >news:5d3b6b9b-820d-43f1...@w41g2000yqb.googlegroups.com
>
> > Monica, you are much too easily trolled.
>
> You know nothing about this situation. I am being targeted by people
> who practice bogus "attachment" therapies. That is not a troll or a
>
This Federici creep indeed appears to be -- well, to coin a
Scientological concept -- demented. Here's a discussion with comments
from his adoptive daughter that he apparently got removed from the web
that was then moved elsewhere. Scary.
http://poundpuplegacy.org/node/27002
It appears he's frantically trying to stamp out brush fires all over
the internet, and may well post under various pseudonyms. From this
discussion, about halfway down the page:
46. I was very aware of the situation with Mr. Federici and his
“standing” in the community as well as his atttempt at gaining
guardianship of his daughter. From my experience with both, it is
clear to me that mom4all is actually Ron Federici writing. This is
exactly the way he talks about adopted children - “damaged” - and the
way he talks about his daughter - on the streets, lying etc. Many of
my friends in the adoption community have seen Ron Federici and never
been back - they find him frightening. His practice is all but gone.
He lies about everything - used to have on his website that he was a
physician, which he is not. In the guardianship hearing for his
daughter the judge was horrified to learn that he had represented to
multiple people that he was his daughter’s guardian - a blatant lie.
Ron’s path to “helping” these children, including his own, is CONTROL,
to the point of child abuse. When his daughter dared to leave home to
escape his control, his response was to seek guardianship. Quite a guy
and NOT the model I look to for adoptive parenting.
Comment by adoptivemom1 | February 23, 2009
52. I wouldn’t put it past Federici to impersonate a mother who’s made
use of his “treatment.” He must really be desperate at this point.
“Mom4all” is clearly a vindictive, deluded person. I would pity
Federici, if he weren’t so clearly abusive to children and viciously
bullying to anyone who even begins to criticize him.
Comment by R. | February 24, 2009
henri
wrote:
Why is this disgusting freak not barred from anything to do with
adoption?
Gregory Hall
news:cj8n65hfpc0q6rh9m...@4ax.com...
<snip>
> Why is this disgusting freak not barred from anything to do with
> adoption?
Did somebody say, "disgusting freak?"
http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/anti-religious-extremists/robert-w-clark/
--
Gregory Hall
Thorazine Shuffle
> On Jul 25, 11:35 am, "t_shuffle" <thorazineshuf...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > "Monica Pignotti" <pigno...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
>
> >news:5d3b6b9b-820d-43f1...@w41g2000yqb.googlegroups.com
>
> > Monica, you are much too easily trolled.
>
> You know nothing about this situation. I am being targeted by people
> who practice bogus "attachment" therapies. That is not a troll or a
>
> This is not just some random troll. These are people with an agenda
> who have tried repeatedly to take down a number of websites that
> expose their bogus, dangerous therapies and are very angry that they
> have been unsuccessful. That's what this smear campaign is about.
>
> http://www.childrenintherapy.org
>
> for more background.
After reading a little further, it seems I owe you an apology.
Gregory Hall
news:925cf9ce-4998-4651...@p36g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
>
> After reading a little further, it seems I owe you an apology.
Well, then, where is it?
--
Gregory Hall
Eldon
> On Sat, 25 Jul 2009 16:33:44 -0700 (PDT), Eldon <EldonB...@aol.com>
Good quesion. He is a licensed clinical psychiatrist. I suppose if
enough people complain, the Virginia Board might investigate and
require a mental health exam. Considering how he flies off the handle,
his condition would probably be pretty apparent.
didacticderivative
Eldon,
Please do complain. They will ask your association with him. You have
not even read his books!
They are not stupid, they will find out about your background in
Scientology and Avatar, to say nothing of your spectacular legal
defeats.
They will give your complaint the consideration it is due.
Do you, by the way, do anything constructive, or are you just a bitter
old man, angry that he could not quite even be the man Harry Palmer
is?
By the way, I laugh at Harry Palmer and Avatar too. "Avatar is what
you've been looking for" - maybe when I need a laugh. You don't, I
think, even know what the word avatar means.
didacticderivative
> On Jul 25, 11:17 pm, Monica Pignotti <pigno...@worldnet.att.net>
> wrote:> On Jul 25, 11:35 am, "t_shuffle" <thorazineshuf...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > "Monica Pignotti" <pigno...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
>
> > >news:5d3b6b9b-820d-43f1...@w41g2000yqb.googlegroups.com
>
> > > Monica, you are much too easily trolled.
>
> > You know nothing about this situation.
Monica is Pignotti is right!
It is true that Eldon knows nothing about this situation, or most
other situations for that matter.
However, she's also wrong.
As a newly-minted Ph.D., she has no practical experience, like her
mentor, Jean Mercer, who is, undisputedly, unlicensed.
If any therapist were doing such horrible things and making such false
representations about their background, they'd be imprisoned or
suspended. These things have happened to some people, unfortunately
for Monica and her friends, not to the people they have drawn false
conclusions about.
So much for Pignotti's exceptional critical thinking skills. 2+4 ≠ 7.
I was kind enough to give her a link to Peirce. I'm sure now that she
has a nice diploma up on your wall, she thinks her studying days are
over.
She's certainly no lawyer. If she'd take time to read the Sarner court
decisions, she'd know what a scam that was. All Sarner had to do was
automate an existing process. He could not even do that. He has
patents, the truth is no one is using them. They're worthless, just
like the Avatar course Eldon is so fixated on.
She is very quick to provide links to sites, but none of them have the
original writings of the people she criticizes. Didn't they teach her
about original sources? If there's a site that says "Monica Pignotti
Supports the Taliban" with a few fabricated quotes, that doesn't make
it true. Similary, a site full of secondhand writings is about as
useful as Eldon's old "Source Course" binders.
Monica Pignotti. Unfit to teach.
Larry Sarner. Not a skeptic, but a scam artist.
Charly D. Miller. Hasn't been licensed as a paramedic in a decade.
Funny business behind that. Alcohol and improper disclosure, for
starters. Then there are cases where's she's been disqualified and her
fees found excessive.
HAPPYsamurai
wrote:
>
> By the way, I laugh at Harry Palmer and Avatar too. "Avatar is what
> you've been looking for" - maybe when I need a laugh. You don't, I
> think, even know what the word avatar means.
an enlightened being that comes down to earth to: sort out people like
Eldon?
or to try out whacky theories on lesser life forms?
does knowledge of religious dieties from other cultures have
relevence?
would knowing who Thor was help?
henri
wrote:
>> Why is this disgusting freak not barred from anything to do with
>> adoption?
>Good quesion. He is a licensed clinical psychiatrist.
I doubt that. A psychiatrist is a medical doctor who has then
completed further study in the field of psychiatry. I seriously doubt
that this incompetent freak is any kind of medical doctor or licensed
in anything.
Monica Pignotti
He is not a psychiatrist. He is a licensed clinical psychologist with
a PsyD.
Monica Pignotti
wrote:
> On Jul 25, 11:33 pm, Eldon <EldonB...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 25, 11:17 pm, Monica Pignotti <pigno...@worldnet.att.net>
> > wrote:> On Jul 25, 11:35 am, "t_shuffle" <thorazineshuf...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > "Monica Pignotti" <pigno...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
>
> > > >news:5d3b6b9b-820d-43f1...@w41g2000yqb.googlegroups.com
>
> > > > Monica, you are much too easily trolled.
>
> > > You know nothing about this situation.
>
> Monica is Pignotti is right!
>
> It is true that Eldon knows nothing about this situation, or most
> other situations for that matter.
No, I was responding to t-shuffle, not Eldon.
> However, she's also wrong.
>
> As a newly-minted Ph.D., she has no practical experience, like her
> mentor, Jean Mercer, who is, undisputedly, unlicensed.
That shows you know nothing about me. Although it is correct that I am
a "newly-minted" PhD, I obtained my MSW, and CSW in 1996 and I did
practice (CSW was the practice credential at the time in the state of
NY and I had a private practice for several years). After that, I
worked for another 5 years under a the supervision of a psychologist
and I did EEG biofeedback (which I am certified in) on, according to
the office records, over 8,000 clients, most of whom were children
with serious behavior problems so I have lots and lots of first-hand
experience with this population. In 2006, I went back to grad school
and got my PhD, which I just completed, but I have had my Masters
degree, which is the social work practice degree, for 13 years.
> If any therapist were doing such horrible things and making such false
> representations about their background, they'd be imprisoned or
> suspended. These things have happened to some people, unfortunately
> for Monica and her friends, not to the people they have drawn false
> conclusions about.
Wrong. We are not making false representations abour anything, except
in your own sick imagination. You have yet to name one specific one,
you just keep repeating this over and over.
> So much for Pignotti's exceptional critical thinking skills. 2+4 ≠ 7.
> I was kind enough to give her a link to Peirce. I'm sure now that she
> has a nice diploma up on your wall, she thinks her studying days are
> over.
I am already familiar with Peirce. Your references to Peirce are a
deflection from the topic at hand, which is the bogus therapies you
promote.
> She's certainly no lawyer.
Correct. I am not a lawyer, nor have I ever claimed to be one. Are
you? No.
> If she'd take time to read the Sarner court
> decisions, she'd know what a scam that was.
You still have not produced any documents. Producing a website that
lists and sells those documents with his name on them is not evidence
because the one you did produce showed nothing of the sort and the
other 6 are probably do not either. You are making serious allegations
and you have the burden of proof to produce the actual documents.
Expecting others to purchase them is reversal of the burden of proof.
Have you even read them? If you think they have evidence, produce
them. You attempted to produce one of them that you claimed was
evidence, but upon reading it, it was not. You have already lied once,
to I have no good reason to believe there is anything in the other
six, so again, produce the documents.
>All Sarner had to do was
> automate an existing process. He could not even do that. He has
> patents, the truth is no one is using them. They're worthless, just
> like the Avatar course Eldon is so fixated on.
Again, Dox or GTFO
> She is very quick to provide links to sites, but none of them have the
> original writings of the people she criticizes.
That's you to a tee.
>Didn't they teach her
> about original sources? If there's a site that says "Monica Pignotti
> Supports the Taliban" with a few fabricated quotes, that doesn't make
> it true. Similary, a site full of secondhand writings is about as
> useful as Eldon's old "Source Course" binders.
Funny, that's exactly what you're doing to me. Spamming the internet
with completely false allegations about me.
>
> Monica Pignotti. Unfit to teach.
My university disagrees with you. I am fit to teach and receive very
good student and faculty evaluations.
> Larry Sarner. Not a skeptic, but a scam artist.
Again, Dox or GTFO
> Charly D. Miller. Hasn't been licensed as a paramedic in a decade.
> Funny business behind that. Alcohol and improper disclosure, for
> starters. Then there are cases where's she's been disqualified and her
> fees found excessive.
She doesn't need to be a current licensed paramedic to produce the
evidence she produced on her website. The evidence is there for all to
see, so people can evaluate the evidence. The rest is ad hominem.
Monica Pignotti
> On Sat, 25 Jul 2009 18:23:41 -0700 (PDT), Eldon <EldonB...@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
> >> Why is this disgusting freak not barred from anything to do with
> >> adoption?
> >Good quesion. He is a licensed clinical psychiatrist.
>
> I doubt that. A psychiatrist is a medical doctor who has then
> completed further study in the field of psychiatry. I seriously doubt
> that this incompetent freak is any kind of medical doctor or licensed
> in anything.
He's not a psychiatrist. He's a icensed clinical psychologist in VA.
I'm curious, though, if Eldon read anything where he claimed to be a
psychiatrist -- if this is the case, that is false.
For more, see:
http://www.childrenintherapy.org/proponents/federici.html
Here is his bio from his own website:
http://www.drfederici.com/staff.htm
He bills himself as a "developmental neuropsychologist" but strangely
enough, he does not list what exactly his degrees are or the
institution(s) he graduated from, something that clients and
prospective clients viewing the website really have a right to know.
Monica
Monica
Monica Pignotti
> original writings of the people she criticizes. Didn't they teach her
> about original sources?
Original sources were used and properly cited on that website. That is
the correct, scholarly thing to do. You know good and well that
original sources cannot be posted in their entirety on websites or
even in scholarly writings, as that would violate copyright laws. I
am, however, familiar with a number of the original sources and the
quotes are just the tip of the iceberg.
Monica
Monica Pignotti
>
Here is a letter from Federici that might shed more light on the
current situation and motivations behind these postings. This is a
legal threat that Federici sent to Wayward Radish (WR), a survivor of
"attachment" and holding therapy. WR was abused with these so-called
therapies as a child and as an adult has come forward to blow the
whistle and as a result, other survivors have also come forward.
Federici threatened to sue WR, and WR posted the letter on WR's blog:
A search for survivors. For the letter, see:
http://childtorture.wordpress.com/2009/03/01/a-letter-from-the-emperor-himself-ladies-gentlemenmister-ronald-federici/
This paragraph is especially telling:
***quote
"While I am a patient man, my limits are about done as you have done
some egregious things on this internet. I know all of your names, and
could post what I know about your personal and family issues of
atheism, scientology, handicaps, depression, mental health issues,
sexuality, etc. I have NOT posted a word in rebuttal. NOT ONE. And no,
the other posts were not me, but people who know me and my family for
20+ years. Not transient, but real, good people. Tons wanted to write
more, but you people only allow your friends who are all hostile so
they stopped."
***end quote
This is what he wrote to a former child client of AT, threatening WR
with lawsuits and WR laughed in his face. This was written in March,
2009, shortly before the internet spam on AT critics began. Of course
just because one event follows another doesn't mean it was caused by
the prior event, but in this case, given the content of the spam, it
would not be unreasonable to consider the possibility.
This was WR's response, showing refusal to be intimidated (the picture
says it all):
The article also gives some of the history of how these folks were
booted off of Wikipedia.
See also:
Monica
Monica Pignotti
> On Sat, 25 Jul 2009 16:33:44 -0700 (PDT), Eldon <EldonB...@aol.com>
Good question. The VA psychology board has some explaining to do,
IMHO.
avenging arcsecant
How much of this was Roger Callahan's "thought field therapy" or
"voice technology"?
> > If any therapist were doing such horrible things and making such false
> > representations about their background, they'd be imprisoned or
> > suspended. These things have happened to some people, unfortunately
> > for Monica and her friends, not to the people they have drawn false
> > conclusions about.
>
> Wrong. We are not making false representations abour anything, except
> in your own sick imagination. You have yet to name one specific one,
> you just keep repeating this over and over.
Why don't you make a simple list of people and what's happened to
them? In particular, the people you keep complaining about?
>
> > So much for Pignotti's exceptional critical thinking skills. 2+4 ≠ 7.
> > I was kind enough to give her a link to Peirce. I'm sure now that she
> > has a nice diploma up on your wall, she thinks her studying days are
> > over.
>
> I am already familiar with Peirce. Your references to Peirce are a
> deflection from the topic at hand, which is the bogus therapies you
> promote.
>
I don't think so, I also doubt you're that familiar with him and his
work, it doesn't show in your muddled thinking.
> > She's certainly no lawyer.
>
> Correct. I am not a lawyer, nor have I ever claimed to be one. Are
> you? No.
How do you know?
>
> > If she'd take time to read the Sarner court
> > decisions, she'd know what a scam that was.
>
> You still have not produced any documents. Producing a website that
> lists and sells those documents with his name on them is not evidence
> because the one you did produce showed nothing of the sort and the
> other 6 are probably do not either. You are making serious allegations
> and you have the burden of proof to produce the actual documents.
> Expecting others to purchase them is reversal of the burden of proof.
> Have you even read them? If you think they have evidence, produce
> them. You attempted to produce one of them that you claimed was
> evidence, but upon reading it, it was not. You have already lied once,
> to I have no good reason to believe there is anything in the other
> six, so again, produce the documents.
>
You can't post massive .pdf files here. Since you know Sarner, ask him
what happened. If the claims about the voting machines are so
libelous, why isn't he doing anything about it?
> >All Sarner had to do was
> > automate an existing process. He could not even do that. He has
> > patents, the truth is no one is using them. They're worthless, just
> > like the Avatar course Eldon is so fixated on.
>
> Again, Dox or GTFO
>
Two can play that game. You produce "dox" from original sources-maybe
websites of your targets-or GTFO?
Critical sites don't count.
> > She is very quick to provide links to sites, but none of them have the
> > original writings of the people she criticizes.
>
> That's you to a tee.
>
I told you where to get the information on Sarner. It will cost you
less than $10.
> >Didn't they teach her
> > about original sources? If there's a site that says "Monica Pignotti
> > Supports the Taliban" with a few fabricated quotes, that doesn't make
> > it true. Similary, a site full of secondhand writings is about as
> > useful as Eldon's old "Source Course" binders.
>
> Funny, that's exactly what you're doing to me. Spamming the internet
> with completely false allegations about me.
>
Oh, that your colleague, Larry Sarner, invented non working voting
machines and was taken to court and lost? Do you dispute the truth of
that?
>
>
> > Monica Pignotti. Unfit to teach.
>
> My university disagrees with you. I am fit to teach and receive very
> good student and faculty evaluations.
>
I wonder what they'd do if they knew the whole story.
> > Larry Sarner. Not a skeptic, but a scam artist.
>
> Again, Dox or GTFO
>
See above, and you have an advantage in being able to ask him.
> > Charly D. Miller. Hasn't been licensed as a paramedic in a decade.
> > Funny business behind that. Alcohol and improper disclosure, for
> > starters. Then there are cases where's she's been disqualified and her
> > fees found excessive.
>
> She doesn't need to be a current licensed paramedic to produce the
> evidence she produced on her website. The evidence is there for all to
> see, so people can evaluate the evidence. The rest is ad hominem.
But the revocation of her license might bring her credibility into
question…
Eldon
> On Jul 26, 2:39 am, henri <he...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 25 Jul 2009 18:23:41 -0700 (PDT), Eldon <EldonB...@aol.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > >> Why is this disgusting freak not barred from anything to do with
> > >> adoption?
> > >Good quesion. He is a licensed clinical psychiatrist.
>
> > I doubt that. A psychiatrist is a medical doctor who has then
> > completed further study in the field of psychiatry. I seriously doubt
> > that this incompetent freak is any kind of medical doctor or licensed
> > in anything.
>
> He's not a psychiatrist. He's a icensed clinical psychologist in VA.
> I'm curious, though, if Eldon read anything where he claimed to be a
> psychiatrist -- if this is the case, that is false.
No, I meant to type psychologtst. Hoever, someone on a discussion
board said he claimed to be a medical doctor at one time.
Monica Pignotti
wrote:
You reverse the burden of proof. You are the one making the assertions
about Larry Sarner. You have the burden of proof to produce dox or
GTFO and you don't get to turn this around and reverse it on me. And
you call my thinking muddled? LOL -- look in the mirror. So dox or
GTFO and saying you cannot post massive PDF files is no excuse. In
fact, if you do a little homework, you'll see that very long legal
documents have frequently been posted here in their full text or
linked to on websites. Seeing how knowledgeable you are about
operating on the internet, this should be no problem for you to do. Or
is it just thar you really don't want us to read them because the do
not prove what you claim?
I hide nothing from my university. They do have the "whole story"
about me, including my past experiences with Scientology and TFT which
they know I reject and criticize. In fact, one of the faculty is
editor of a journal that published an account I wrote of my
experiences with TFT. I am considered fit to teach, and in fact, many
of the faculty are of the opinion that because of my past experiences
and what I learned from my mistakes, I have a great deal to teach
people. This is the spirit of the social work profession. People are
allowed to make mistakes and correct them. We even have someone
teaching on the faculty who was convicted of a DUI felony for killing
someone while driving under the influence -- she served her time of 5
years in prison, learned her lessons from her mistakes and is now
teaching -- the students recently voted her teacher of the year. While
my mistakes were not as serious as hers (I never killed anyone through
my mistakes) the principle is the same. People can and do learn from
their mistakes and change, although it appears that you have not
learned from yours. You continue to make serious mistakes with a
therapy that is far more dangerous than TFT could ever be. Not only
that, you perpetrate smear campaigns on your critics. That makes you
no different from a currently active Scientologist.
As for your request that I make a "simple list" of people and what has
happened to them, this has already been done in the AT victims section
of:
http://www.childrenintherapy.org
As for your being a lawyer or not, I'll concede that one to you. I do
not know if you are one or not. I doubt it, but there is no way for me
to know because you are an anonymous coward who lacks the courage to
put your real name to what you write. If I had to guess, I would say
that you are a parent and follower of either Federici or Becker-
Weidman. Just a guess, though -- I could be wrong because I have no
way to know since whatever your profession, you are an anonymous
coward.
Dox or GTFO. No excuses. People post things bigger than that here all
the time. You don't have to post the PDF. You can just post the full
text.
Monica
World Frauds
Monica and Your New Friend Eldon:
This moron and criminal in France is your new best friend? You two
belong together, as both are cult members, frauds and just plain crazy
people.
Here is Eldon's latest posting...really says it all. As for Monica, we
must pass all these comments along to your new employer to show just
how 'professional" you are. You and the criminal Eldon are experts at
disparaging comments to whomever, but can you take the real truth when
it shows up on your resume? Just look at Eldon's criminal recors and
resume...you two are a fine match.
Situation ReportDec 12, 2005 ... The story began in 1991 when Eldon
Braun, a Provisionally Licensed Avatar Master, was caught cheating on
royalties he owed Star's Edge, ...
www.avatarepc.com/sitrep1.html
Monica Pignotti
Actually, I've never met Eldon, but he has not been convicted of any
crime. The charges against him were civil, not criminal.
> Here is Eldon's latest posting...really says it all. As for Monica, we
> must pass all these comments along to your new employer to show just
> how 'professional" you are. You and the criminal Eldon are experts at
> disparaging comments to whomever, but can you take the real truth when
> it shows up on your resume? Just look at Eldon's criminal recors and
> resume...you two are a fine match.
>
> Situation ReportDec 12, 2005 ... The story began in 1991 when Eldon
> Braun, a Provisionally Licensed Avatar Master, was caught cheating on
> royalties he owed Star's Edge, ...www.avatarepc.com/sitrep1.html
Oooh I'm so scared -- not. So now you're threatening to do to me, what
Federici did to Jean Mercer when he went to her university and by the
way, nothing bad happened to her as a result. There have been highly
misleading comments made about this, that she was put out to pasture
(that's a really ageist comment, by the way), but that is a lie. She
retired at age 65, as planned all along as most Professors do (had
nothing to do with the report on her), and she is still in good
standing with her university as a Professor Emertia.
Going to employers is also a tactic used by Scientologists. By all
means, go right ahead. There is nothing you can tell them about me
that they do not already know and if you lie to them about me as you
and your supporters have been doing online, they will recognize it as
a lie. If you think passing along something Eldon posts to them is
going to make any difference at all, you're wrong. You'll be laughed
out of the room as what Eldon chooses to post has nothing to do with
me. You seem to have really lost touch with reality, if you think
Eldon's postings are going to get me in trouble at work. I've already
shown some of your postings and ridiculous ads to some of my
colleagues and it is obvious to them that the person posting them is a
kook. So you see, I have nothing to hide so go right ahead and make a
fool of yourself.
Given the smear campaign I have been subjected to I believe I have
shown considerable restraint in my responses to you (and yes, I have
saved all those libelous Craigslist and Backpage ads, even though
Craigslist and Backpage have removed most of them because they could
see that it was spam, harassment and cyberstalking after they were
sent the repeated links to the insanity you or one of your supporters
posted). There is nothing in the paragraph above that any sensible
person would find the least bit objectionable, so again, go right
ahead and send it to whomever you please and I, in turn, will send
them the 179 newsgroups you have been libeling me on, as well as all
the libelous ads.
Eldon
LOL! What a huffy, indignant idiot you are. Maybe you and Harry Palmer
should trade some tips on self-destruction via repeated footbullets.
You both thrash about in much the same way. Did you also learn your
black PR shit in Scientology?
Monica Pignotti
It sure looks that way, doesn't it? Some people have wondered if there
is a school cult leaders go to because there are so many striking
parallels in the way these various types of cults operate. I'm sure
OSA would welcome this dude with open arms, with the skills he has
demonstrated although I hear that the pay really sucks.
Monica
Monica Pignotti
I just found the following transcript of a BBC program on Federici and
his controversial treatment:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2000/problemchild_transcript.shtml
He makes some pretty big claims here, such as:
"NARRATOR: From what he has learnt in these orphanages Dr Federici has
come to believe that many child behavioural problems stem from a lack
of attachment and he has now developed a theory about how to help all
unattached children, no matter what the cause of their problem. He
believes unattached children do not really understand love and caring.
They have not learnt properly to recognise or give it. Where Dr
Federici is radical is that he believes children can learn to feel
secure and attach in a different way, through rigid controls and
rules. He now applies his theory beyond the orphanage to children who
have failed to attach, for whatever reason, even to those brought up
in ordinary homes. From his Washington practice, Dr Federici claims an
80% success rate in his treatment of thousands of children in America
suffering from what he believes are attachment disorders. His
treatment is totally surprising. Where conventional psychology would
emphasise love and understanding he insists the answer is not love."
Where are the references to randomized clinical trials to support his
claims of an 80% success rate? I couldn't find any.
The transcript, at the above URL, describes the treatment in detail,
but where is the evidence, other than anecdotal evidence, that it does
what is claimed? Where is the evidence that it does no harm?
Here is what Professor Peter Fonagy, a real expert in Attachment
problems had to say in criticism of Federici's program:
"PROFESSOR PETER FONAGY (Psychoanalyst, University College, London):
I've major worries about this notion of knocking things down in order
to build them up. The normal approach to cheating behavioural disorder
of this kind is to help the parents understand the child better. What
is so vulnerable in these children is their sense of themselves, their
sense of who they are. Now if you are systematically undermining that
very fragile, that very vulnerable sense of who that child is you
could end up in the situation where the child becomes really very much
more depressed and hopeless and helpless. My concern about it is that
you are destroying something in the child that is the child's own.
However distorted and however maladaptive it is, it is the child's
own."
and Dr. Fonagy's comment on Federici's restraint procedures
demonstrated:
"PETER FONAGY: I think there's a real danger in assuming that we know
what's going on in the child's mind. How do we know that that child is
going to interpret two parents trying to restrain him physically as an
act of affection?"
"PETER FONAGY: It's presumptuous of us to assume that just because it
involves that close physical contact it will undoubtedly be
interpreted as something that's positive."
And this expert's comment on the restraint procedures demonstrated on
the program by Federici:
"DR STEPHEN SCOTT (Consultant Child Psychologist, Maudsley Hospital,
London): I can see the attraction for a very frustrated parent with a
child who's being very aggressive, kicking and spitting, that you do
indeed need to get control and certainly I would agree one needs to
have firm boundaries, but not an arbitrary set of boundaries. So just
to say I want to see, you to sit over there for no apparent reason and
to have instant obedience to that, it's not something they usually do
and the child can't see a reason for it."
"STEPHEN SCOTT: My worry about such a severe approach is that it is
actually at risk of being quite punitive, of frightening the child and
of just repressing their behaviour so that they learn if they don't
immediately jump to their parents' command, they have a rather
terrible thing happen. They get pinned down to the ground, their
parents come and sit on them, so the kind of child this is bringing
about is one who is instantaneously obedient, who doesn't start
thinking for themselves and doesn't start adapting to their
environment."
and
"STEPHEN SCOTT: They're not rewriteable like some computer disc.
Nearly all children who are behaving anti-socially do have a full
range of emotion, they do understand happiness and sadness, so the
notion that they're all scrabbled up inside you've got to cut through
all that I think is a mistaken one. I think it's about reshaping and
re-directing their emotions."
and another comment from Peter Fonagy:
"PETER FONAGY: If you are imposing proximity in the hope that you will
impose attachment then you will quickly realise that that's a paradox.
Attachment is perhaps one of the only things in life that one cannot
impose. It's a sense of being understood. If you are forced to sit in
somebody's lap, that's perhaps the last thing that will make you feel
loved by that person. I mean that was the last thing that you wanted.
If that person tells you look, the last thing you want to do at the
moment is sit on my lap isn't it, then you actually feel understood.
Yes Mum, it is the last thing."
Dr. Fonagy shares my opinion about the need for randomized clinical
trials to support Federici's claims, or to see if this is even safe:
"PETER FONAGY: Because it's such an unusual intervention I would
really want to know in a properly conducted randomised control trial
that the treatment is (a) safe and (b) effective in the long run. You
see it seems to me that the treatment is actually based on a
misconceived metaphor. There's no way that you can take a child back.
You can't wind it back like you'd wind a tape back and replay it. What
you need to do, maybe somewhat less dramatic, maybe somewhat less eye-
catching, but something that helps build up the relationship between
parent and child, but with half the possibility of really undermining
that child's future."
Federici claims:
"RON FEDERICI: Even in the most difficult of situations where the
child has been written off as being totally unattached and
irrecuperable I believe very strongly that any child, even that level
of damage, by hard work and very unorthodox and aggressive and
innovative techniques will often bring that damaged child to an 80%
solution with the family."
But is his strong belief enough when children's lives and futures are
at stake? I think not. Where is the evidence?
There was a similar episode on Dateline that was up on Google videos.
Federici is quite proud of this episode which leads me to wonder why
he had it removed for "copyright violations" when all kinds of TV
episodes are put up there all the time. Does he really care that much
about copyright law?
Pretty scary stuff, if you ask me.
IMHO,
Monica
Piltdown Man
Monica Pignotti <pign...@worldnet.att.net> wrote...
> I just found the following transcript of a BBC program on Federici and
> his controversial treatment:
>
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2000/problemchild_transcript.shtml
>
> He makes some pretty big claims here, such as:
> "NARRATOR: From what he has learnt in these orphanages Dr Federici has
> come to believe that many child behavioural problems stem from a lack
> of attachment and he has now developed a theory about how to help all
> unattached children, no matter what the cause of their problem. He
> believes unattached children do not really understand love and caring.
> They have not learnt properly to recognise or give it. Where Dr
> Federici is radical is that he believes children can learn to feel
> secure and attach in a different way, through rigid controls and
> rules. He now applies his theory beyond the orphanage to children who
> have failed to attach, for whatever reason, even to those brought up
> in ordinary homes. From his Washington practice, Dr Federici claims an
> 80% success rate in his treatment of thousands of children in America
> suffering from what he believes are attachment disorders. His
> treatment is totally surprising. Where conventional psychology would
> emphasise love and understanding he insists the answer is not love."
>
> Where are the references to randomized clinical trials to support his
> claims of an 80% success rate? I couldn't find any.
>
> The transcript, at the above URL, describes the treatment in detail,
> but where is the evidence, other than anecdotal evidence, that it does
> what is claimed? Where is the evidence that it does no harm?
<snip>
When reading this, I cannot help but be reminded of the track record of
that other famed child "psychiatrist" (which he claimed to be), "Dr." Bruno
Bettelheim, who for decades was considered an authority on children with
developmental problems. I use the quote marks because Bettelheim was a
fraud of Hubbardian proportions. In fact, he was three times the fraud
Hubbard was: Hubbard only claimed one completely phony PhD, Bettelheim
claimed three. (Unlike Hubbard, Bettelheim had indeed managed to finish a
university degree. His only academic qualification was what in present-day
American terminology would be called a master's degree, in art history.)
Yet for over a generation, this man's absurd psychoanalytical theories
about children with conditions like autism were treated as if they were
inerrant scripture. One can still find his name uncritically mentioned as
an authority in lots of places. That he was exposed as a complete, criminal
fraud many years ago doesn't seem to have had much of an impact on his
reputation in psychoanalytical circles.
Amusingly, just like Hubbard, he also claimed a personal connection to the
Great God Sigmund himself, but Hubbard had the sense to interpose 'Snake'
Thompson in the imaginary chain of connection, making things harder to
trace. Bettelheim simply claimed to have been a personal student of
Siggy's. There is no evidence they ever even met.
> Here is what professor Peter Fonagy, a real expert in Attachment
> problems had to say in criticism of Federici's program:
> "PROFESSOR PETER FONAGY (Psychoanalyst, University College, London):
<snip>
Where are the references to randomized clinical trials to support
psychoanalysis? Where is the evidence, other than anecdotal evidence, that
it does what is claimed? Where is the evidence that it does no harm?
To use just one simple example, without looking very hard, one can still
easily find psychoanalysts who claim they can "cure" homosexuality, and
turn gay men into straight men, by having an hour-long paid-for chat with
them every week or so -- for a great, great many, and open-ended, series of
weeks of course. And where I said "chat", I should of course have said "a
clinical therapy session". God, are they ever fond of that word "clinical".
It seems it has to be inserted in every other sentence whenever some
purveyor of psychobabble, psychoanalytical or otherwise, wants to seem
"scientific". Sorry, but trying to use an argument from authority by
trotting out a deluded follower of the psychoanalytical religion as a
supposed authority isn't valid reasoning.
(Note: according to a professional practioner of the psychoanalytical
faith, my occasional public questioning of the scientific basis of
psychoanalysis is merely a manifestation of the "defence mechanism of the
ego". Therefore, psychoanalysis is scientific. It must be true, because he
said so in a newsgroup.)
Eldon
<piltd...@ivehaditwiththespam.sorry> wrote:
> Monica Pignotti <pigno...@worldnet.att.net> wrote...
There, there, P.M. Have you ever considered that your argumentative
tendencies might be due to an orgone imbalance? (Just kidding there.)
Whatever anyone may think of Freud or his various disciples like Jung
and Reich, the job titles "psychoanalyst" and "psychotherapist" are
more or less meaningless in most places, because they are largely
unregulated, just like "hypnotherapist" and "sophrologist."
You have to be licensed to say you're a medical doctor (like a dentist
or psychiatrist), or to use the title "psychologist" in most
jurisdictions. See the rather circuitous discussions about this from
the American Psychoanalytic Association website:
www.apsa.org/ABOUTPSYCHOANALYSIS/ASKAPSYCHOANALYST/ABOUTTHEPROFESSION/tabid/254/ItemId/401/Default.aspx
------
Q. Licensure and Training
I have two questions. First, do you foresee states passing laws
allowing for the licensure of psychoanalysts in the near future?
Second, is it necessary to possess an advanced degree in a mental
health field, in addition to a certificate in psychoanalysis, in order
to practice psychoanalysis, or is a graduate degree in other fields
acceptable?
A. Since states have many different perspectives, it is impossible to
make any predictions. In terms of qualifications to be a
psychoanalyst, please read on our website, PRINCIPLES AND STANDARDS
FOR EDUCATION IN PSYCHOANALYSIS
and particularly,
(IV. Selection for
Psychoanalytic Education and Clinical Training)
Section D. Waiver of
Eligibility Standards is relevant to non-mental professionals seeking
training in psychoanalysis.
Q. A Career in Psychoanalytic Psychotherapy or Psychoanalysis
I'm interested in pursuing a career in Psychoanalytic therapy. However
all information that I have so far gathered indicates that either a
medical degree with specialization in Psychiatry or a doctorate in
Psychology would be sufficient to apply for training. I would like to
know if any of the two is preferred over the other. As psychiatry
tends to focus on the use of drugs in therapy while psychology adopts
methods more in line with those practiced by Psychoanalysts. Also, on
the American Psychoanalytic Association website it indicates that
training is conducted over a period of 10-12 years. Is this full-time
training, and, if so, would a person not require substantial financial
resources in order to follow through with this training?
A. As seen in the Standards of Training , preference is not given to
one form of mental health training or other (although some Institutes
may vary from this).
Training is not full time and the great majority of people are
professionally engaged during their training. Classes are usually
completed within 4 years (about 2, 3 or 4 classes a week). The
personal analysis and supervised analysis take longer, but 10-12 years
before graduation is usually not the rule.
-----
And here's an explanation from Boston Graduate School of
Psychoanalysis:
www.bgsp.edu/licensure.html
------
Q. I’m studying at BGSP in Boston or New York. Can I get licensed?
A. Licensing occurs when a state government regulates the practice of
a profession. Certification by a state is similar to licensing, except
it regulates the use of a professional title, such as “certified
psychoanalyst,” without regulating the practice of the profession.
(N.b. Graduates of psychoanalytic institutes have traditionally been
called “Certified Psychoanalysts”, certified by the institute from
which they graduated. State regulation is a different matter.)
Currently, the profession of psychoanalysis is regulated by a handful
of states: New York has a psychoanalyst licensing law. Graduation from
either the Psya.D. or the Certificate program in Boston satisfies the
educational requirements for licensure in New York.
Massachusetts does not currently regulate psychoanalysis, so you don’t
need a license to practice psychoanalysis in Massachusetts. However,
legislation has been presented which would place restrictions on the
practice of psychotherapy. BGSP is lobbying against this legislation.
Such restrictions would be avoided by students who graduate from the
M.A. Program in Psychoanalytic Counseling, which prepares students to
be eligible to become Licensed Mental Health Counselors in
Massachusetts.
------
I don't know what the rules are in Belgium, but they're probably
different from those in neighboring countries. But I'd guess you can
hang out a shingle that proclaims you're some sort of mental health
professional if you wish.
Monica Pignotti
Actually, this is changing for the term "psychotherapist" which is
becoming increasingly regulated. For example in the state of New York,
prior to 2005, it was true that anyone could call him/herself a
psychotherapist but after 2005 all that changed and the term
"psychotherapist" is now a protected term that only individuals with
certain licenses (for example in psychology, social work, or
counseling) can use.
As for psychoanalysis, while true it has little research support
(although there actually are some randomized clinical trials on it,
enough for a JAMA review to conclude it does have evidence, although
that has been strongly disputed), at least they don't do what RSF was
depicted doing and recommending on that program and for the record,
Peter Fonagy is not just a psychoanalyst, he has a PhD and is licensed
as a clinical psychologist in the UK, along with quite an impressive
CV:
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/psychoanalysis/unit-staff/fonagy_cv_jan_09.pdf
and he is one of the few people who has actually published a
randomized clinical trial on psychoanalytic based psychotherapy.
Monica
Eldon
In Europe, where there are national health care systems, it's not just
a matter of regulation but what education, licensing or certification
is required to qualify to get paid for providing certain services.
See:
http://books.google.com/books?id=PUtDNdRbP44C&pg=PA25&lpg=PA25&dq=psychotherapist+regulation+europe&source=bl&ots=a6s1gXNL4e&sig=kYwLNqCzzxzqtyItHKo9Q9LdkOE&hl=en&ei=yZltSq-YHeOMjAf7lOSyCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1
So if you want to get "coaching" or Scientology's bogus therapies, you
pay for them yourself with no reimbursement or tax deduction, which
shrinks the market size considerably.
Of course, it's interesting to note how many other parts of the world
don't have mental health care as it is defined in the west. There may
be mental institutions, but whether they do any real "treatment"
depends on the country.
Monica Pignotti
> On Sat, 25 Jul 2009 16:33:44 -0700 (PDT), Eldon <EldonB...@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >ThisFedericicreep indeed appears to be -- well, to coin a
> >Scientological concept -- demented. Here's a discussion with comments
> >from his adoptive daughter that he apparently got removed from the web
> >that was then moved elsewhere. Scary.
> >http://poundpuplegacy.org/node/27002
> >It appears he's frantically trying to stamp out brush fires all over
> >the internet, and may well post under various pseudonyms. From this
> >discussion, about halfway down the page:
> >“standing” in the community as well as his atttempt at gaining
> >guardianship of his daughter. From my experience with both, it is
> >exactly the way he talks about adopted children - “damaged” - and the
> >way he talks about his daughter - on the streets, lying etc. Many of
> >been back - they find him frightening. His practice is all but gone.
> >He lies about everything - used to have on his website that he was a
> >physician, which he is not. In the guardianship hearing for his
> >daughter the judge was horrified to learn that he had represented to
> >multiple people that he was his daughter’s guardian - a blatant lie.
> >Ron’s path to “helping” these children, including his own, is CONTROL,
> >escape his control, his response was to seek guardianship. Quite a guy
> >and NOT the model I look to for adoptive parenting.
> >Comment by adoptivemom1 | February 23, 2009
> >use of his “treatment.” He must really be desperate at this point.
> >“Mom4all” is clearly a vindictive, deluded person. I would pity
> >Federici, if he weren’t so clearly abusive to children and viciously
> >bullying to anyone who even begins to criticize him.
> >Comment by R. | February 24, 2009
>
> adoption?
I just wanted to clarify something, since Ron Federici has now written
to my Dean and complained that I posted the title of this thread, that
I did not post this title. Even though my Dean has made it clear to me
that I am in no way in any kind of trouble and I have made him aware
of all of the highly libelous and defamatory postings made against me
long before I posted one word giving my opinion about Federici, I
wanted to clarify a few points about this thread, for the record.
If people check this thread, it is very clear that I did not post the
title words to it. I was only responding to points being made on the
thread. I would never call anyone, not even him, a "disgusting child
abuser" and I honestly don't believe he is one. Here is my position
and opinion about Federici. It is my belief that Federici truly
believes he is helping children, but nevertheless, having read the
transcript of the BBC program and seen videos of him and the way he
works with children, I have serious concerns about the treatment he
offers children because 1) as far as I know there are no randomized
clinical trials that demonstrate the efficacy of his approach and 2)
to me, his approach looks like it could be dangerous for the children
-- this is my opinion that I am expressing -- not a fact, my opinion,
that based on what I have seen and read and an opinion I have a
constitutional right to express.
On the other hand, over the past several months there have been a
number of truly libelous and defamatory postings about me that appear
to be coming from AT proponents that have attacked me, along with
other people who have criticized these approaches. Factually false
statements have been made about me, not opinions but alleged facts
such as stating that I sell quack devices to my former clients, that I
work with the CEI, that I work for Sarah Palin's campaign and a number
of others that I have documented.
For the record, IMHO.
Monica
henri
<pign...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
Sorry my subject line was used by the nut to harass you.
>If people check this thread, it is very clear that I did not post the
>title words to it. I was only responding to points being made on the
>thread. I would never call anyone, not even him, a "disgusting child
>abuser" and I honestly don't believe he is one. Here is my position
>and opinion about Federici. It is my belief that Federici truly
>believes he is helping children, but nevertheless, having read the
>transcript of the BBC program and seen videos of him and the way he
>works with children, I have serious concerns about the treatment he
>offers children because 1) as far as I know there are no randomized
>clinical trials that demonstrate the efficacy of his approach and 2)
>to me, his approach looks like it could be dangerous for the children
>-- this is my opinion that I am expressing -- not a fact, my opinion,
>that based on what I have seen and read and an opinion I have a
>constitutional right to express.
Frankly, whatever Federici THINKS he is doing, what he is actually
doing, as a matter of objective fact, is conduct that has no
reasonable basis for being used as a "treatment" of any sort and
which, I believe, should be considered child abuse. What is being
done in the name of "attachment therapy" is conduct that would not be
tolerated for a minute out of a so-called "therapeutic" context, and
that appears to be the only thing preventing criminal prosecution of
this behavior. It's obvious that this "therapy" puts its victims at
grave risk of physical harm or even death, and in fact, it has
demonstrably been the direct cause of multiple deaths from restraint
asphyxia.
Even if the technique has somehow been refined so as to avoid deaths
or physical injuries, it is clearly behavior likely to cause deep and
lasting emotional trauma. I don't see anything it can be described as
other than flat-out abuse.
As a matter of opinion, I find this child abuse masquerading as
"therapy" disgusting.
Monica Pignotti
> On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 17:52:40 -0700 (PDT), Monica Pignotti
>
Not your fault. I seem to recall there were some cases where
Scientologists went to various employers of Scientology critics and
tried to badmouth them. That never happened to me, but I seem to
recall there being some cases where this was done to people. In any
case, my Dean was very understanding about the situation and I am not
in any trouble whatsoever.
I have a ton of evidence just right here on the usenet, thanks to what
John Dorsay put together, that on last count, postings were made to
189 newsgroups and that was awhile ago. That's not counting all the
ads that were placed on Craigslist and Backpage that libeled me, that
I had removed, but I have saved their content as evidence for the
outright lies that were told about me. He had the nerve to suggest
that the Dean do a Google search on my name and see what comes up.
What comes up are the libelous and defamatory postings about me and
also about Larry Sarner and Jean Mercer that have not one shred of
evidence to back them up.
Monica
Monica
Eldon
> On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 17:52:40 -0700 (PDT), Monica Pignotti
>
Hell, I'm sorry you beat me to it. The subject line is obviously
true.
I've known an adopted kid who acted out pretty violently at times,
attacking other kids and adults. It took years for him to get over it.
I've restrained him myself when he picked up something and started
flailing away at me. That kind of behavior definitely has to be
curbed.
But this "therapy" of using methodical assault is sort of like
waterboarding. It's obviously designed to traumatize the kid into
submission, not teach civilized behavior.
Having read about Federici's own behavior at home, I agree with
whoever it was that called him a psychopath.
name
> On Jul 23, 1:13 pm, didacticderivative <didacticderivat...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > > As for Larry Sarner, you haven't provided us with evidence to support
> > > your rants against him. All you produced was a lawsuit where he was
> > > the plaintiff and he has never been charged or convicted of fraud, so
> > > once again you make claims with no evidence to support them, just like
> > > you do for the bogus therapies you so rabidly defend.
>
> > > Eldon Braun was never convicted of "theft" so again, you lie and
> > > distort. It was a civil, not a criminal case.
>
> > > Monica
>
> > Monica, if you'd take the time to read Peirce, you'd know that one and
> > seven are not the same.
>
> > Here, you will find seven cases involving paragon of inventive wisdom,
> > Larry Sarner:
>
> >http://larrysarnerpseudoscience.wordpress.com/2009/07/15/confounding-...
>
> > 2 bankruptcy cases
> > 4 civil cases
> > 1 appellate case
>
> > Sarner, like Braun, was never charged with criminal offenses, but
> > their defeat in civil matters is undeniable.
>
> And 7 bogus irrelevant claims are no better than one bogus, irrelevant
> claim. A civil case involving a voting machine has nothing to do with
> the topic at hand, which is the bogus therapies you are evading
> criticism on, by attempting a smear campaign of anyone who criticizes
> are all kinds of civil cases that are won and lost for all kinds of
> reasons and someone losing a civil case is no reason to damn the
> person the way you're trying to do. This would only have relevance if
> I was basing my conclusions on blind faith in Larry Sarner, which I
> had not. I had looked at the evidence and made my own conclusions long
> before ever having any contact with Larry Sarner.
> The real question is, even if you were to prove that Sarner was 100%
> guilty of what you accuse him of (you have not proved this but let's
> just assume for the sake of argument that you have) it would not
> change the facts one iota, which are the harmful, bogus therapies
> being promoted. Here is the really issue, which is not based on any
> kind of blind adherence to Sarner or anyone else, but rather, the
> words of the therapists you are fighting so hard to evade. The
> evidence is there in their own words, no need for blind faith in
> anyone. People can look these up and read it for themselves:http://www.childrenintherapy.org/proponents/- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Eldon Braun's evil ways have continued. he know has a "follower" in
this Monica person, and in those foolish enough to interact with him.
His evil has surfaced in attempted rapes, molestations, and his
overall history.
We, know, that he is the crtic of many which is his way of diverting
attention from his terrible past.
Read here for the true story..
Situation ReportDec 12, 2005 ... The story began in 1991 when Eldon
Braun, a Provisionally Licensed Avatar Master, was caught cheating on
royalties he owed Star's Edge, ...
Eldon
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Eldon Braun's evil ways have continued. he know has a "follower" in
> this Monica person, and in those foolish enough to interact with him.
>
> His evil has surfaced in attempted rapes, molestations, and his
> overall history.
>
> We, know, that he is the crtic of many which is his way of diverting
> attention from his terrible past.
>
> Read here for the true story..
>
> Situation ReportDec 12, 2005 ... The story began in 1991 when Eldon
> Braun, a Provisionally Licensed Avatar Master, was caught cheating on
> royalties he owed Star's Edge, ...www.avatarepc.com/sitrep1.html-
Fuck Star's Edge, and also Harry Palmer and the Scientology horse he
rode to achieve minor cult leader status. Read here for the true
story:
name
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Eldon Braun's evil ways have continued. he know has a "follower" in
> > this Monica person, and in those foolish enough to interact with him.
>
> > His evil has surfaced in attempted rapes, molestations, and his
> > overall history.
>
> > We, know, that he is the crtic of many which is his way of diverting
> > attention from his terrible past.
>
> > Read here for the true story..
>
> > Situation ReportDec 12, 2005 ... The story began in 1991 when Eldon
> > Braun, a Provisionally Licensed Avatar Master, was caught cheating on
> > royalties he owed Star's Edge, ...www.avatarepc.com/sitrep1.html-
>
> Fuck Star's Edge, and also Harry Palmer and the Scientology horse he
> rode to achieve minor cult leader status. Read here for the true
> story:
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Eldon
You are the "most evil" of the imposters, quacks, criminals, and child
abusers. We all know their are many allegations against you about your
crimes against BOTH children and women. Sex assaults? Fraud? Forgery?
These are ALL your crimes against humanity . And this "pignotti' fool?
She is a blind follower and still part of Callahan's and it seems ,
Palmer's work BUT taken to the wrong level. Evil attacking of people
with foul language, lies, deceit and fabrication? We have checked out
your new ways of trying to be an "expert". It is a joke, as you are
only an expert of crime, rape, and fabrication--so take your new
friends along with you like this Ms Pignotti who has a host of other
problems. Stay together. Maybe she is your new "field" of logic and
energy?. And you dare to insult the group and pretend you are a decent
man? Palmer and the group agree you shoud stay in France, and actually
HIDE from the world. You cannot come back to the states or Canada?
Eldon, stay in hiding as you have done. Others do not need to hear
your own insanity and bizarre behaviors. That was found out in court
and when you left. You robbed your own people, then turn to criticize
others? And seduce such impressionable people like these past-sci
members?
Very sick and evil Eldon. BUT you were always that way? Remember the
member in Florida? remember all the court cases you were in and
convicted?
Very sick person you are, and all those who follow you now...Ms
Pignotti, you are about to learn from the worst of them all...
Eldon
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > Eldon Braun's evil ways have continued. he know has a "follower" in
> > > this Monica person, and in those foolish enough to interact with him.
>
> > > His evil has surfaced in attempted rapes, molestations, and his
> > > overall history.
>
> > > We, know, that he is the crtic of many which is his way of diverting
> > > attention from his terrible past.
>
> > > Read here for the true story..
>
> > > Situation ReportDec 12, 2005 ... The story began in 1991 when Eldon
> > > Braun, a Provisionally Licensed Avatar Master, was caught cheating on
> > > royalties he owed Star's Edge, ...www.avatarepc.com/sitrep1.html-
>
> > Fuck Star's Edge, and also Harry Palmer and the Scientology horse he
> > rode to achieve minor cult leader status. Read here for the true
> > story:
>
LOL! What a sick and evil minion of Ron Federici you are!
Every minute I can distract you into making these ridiculous attacks
is a minute you won't be able to spend abusing children!
That's why I am so pleased to misdirect your abuse, asshole.
Get it? I hope not.
Either way, continue to be distracted from abusing children. Abuse me
all you want. It doesn't hurt at all
Monica Pignotti
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > Eldon Braun's evil ways have continued. he know has a "follower" in
> > > this Monica person, and in those foolish enough to interact with him.
>
> > > His evil has surfaced in attempted rapes, molestations, and his
> > > overall history.
>
> > > We, know, that he is the crtic of many which is his way of diverting
> > > attention from his terrible past.
>
> > > Read here for the true story..
>
> > > Situation ReportDec 12, 2005 ... The story began in 1991 when Eldon
> > > Braun, a Provisionally Licensed Avatar Master, was caught cheating on
> > > royalties he owed Star's Edge, ...www.avatarepc.com/sitrep1.html-
>
> > Fuck Star's Edge, and also Harry Palmer and the Scientology horse he
> > rode to achieve minor cult leader status. Read here for the true
> > story:
>
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Eldon
>
> You are the "most evil" of the imposters, quacks, criminals, and child
> abusers. We all know their are many allegations against you about your
> crimes against BOTH children and women. Sex assaults? Fraud? Forgery?
> These are ALL your crimes against humanity . And this "pignotti' fool?
> She is a blind follower and still part of Callahan's and it seems ,
> Palmer's work BUT taken to the wrong level.
Wrong. I have never been a part of Palmer or Avatar or any of its
offshoots. As for Callahan, I severed all ties with Callahan more than
five years ago and have published a number of articles critical of him
since that time and I was far from being a "blind follower". When I
was involved with TFT, people were highly annoyed with how much I
questioned and challenged things. It is obvious you have no idea
whatsoever who I am or what I am about. I've been called
"argumentative" and "negative" by many for repeatedly challenging
things, but blind follower? LOL. Ask Roger Callahan someday about
that.
<rest of bs snipped>
Gregory Hall
news:3878d6f3-0d28-460d...@t2g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
<snip>
Wrong. I have never been a part of Palmer or Avatar or any of its
offshoots. As for Callahan, I severed all ties with Callahan more than
five years ago and have published a number of articles critical of him
since that time and I was far from being a "blind follower". When I
was involved with TFT, people were highly annoyed with how much I
questioned and challenged things. It is obvious you have no idea
whatsoever who I am or what I am about. I've been called
"argumentative" and "negative" by many for repeatedly challenging
things, but blind follower? LOL. Ask Roger Callahan someday about
that.
=======================================================
[REPLY]
Argumentative and negative are way too mild. The best term to describe you,
Monica, is "self absorbed." You seem to think people actually give a hoot
about you.
WRONG! You need to get a clue, Monica. You are a small fish in a small pond.
Get lost. Nobody in ARS wants to hear from you.
--
Gregory Hall
Monica Pignotti
> "Monica Pignotti" <pigno...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
LOL, troll. Those words apply to you, judging from the reaction I've
seen from people to you, nobody here enjoys your postings and would
love nothing more than for you to get lost.
Gregory Hall
How much do you weigh now, Monica? From the looks of your recent photos it
appears you've put on more than a few pounds. I'd guess you're tipping the
scales in the 150-160 range. Oink oink!
--
Gregory Hall
Lawrence Toomajan
news:33p3hl....@news.alt.net...
weighs quite a bit more than Monica ever might.
I suppose that you would have no problem with Linda having $350 million
dollars in her bank account, going up to her and calling her an Oink Oink
pig as well?
Do you know what Linda's views on Scientology are?
They are pretty much the same as her views on George Bush and Howard Stern.
{HINT}
--
Read "The Diary Of A Scientologist"
http://mysite.verizon.net/toomajan/
Larry
Lawrence Toomajan
news:33p3hl....@news.alt.net...
Gregory Hall
news:4aa1bcd4$2...@news2.lightlink.com...
Monica is your typical, deluded, hateful, revenge-seeking ex-Scientologist
who blames each and every one of her many shortcomings and/or failures on
Scientology. Even her own stupidity when she put herself in the unfortunate
position to get sexually molested by some con man she has managed to blame
on Scientology when Scientology had nothing whatsoever to do with it. She
claims she was dazed and confused by auditing, etc. but we all know that's
just bullshit that enables her, like any typical product of the liberal
education system, to have an excuse to refuse to see a correlation between
cause and effect, action and consequence, inaction and responsibility.
I've read some of her crap - all that I need to, at any rate, to have her
pegged as another self-inflicted victim. Let me put it this way. Monica's no
Barbara Schwarz. There is NO basic honesty or ethics in Monica's being.
--
Gregory Hall
Lawrence Toomajan
Alright.
It looks like you did your extra homework on Monica it seems?
Well, my opinion of Monica is that regardless of what may happened
to her in or out of Scientology, it is a GIVEN that Scientologists did
absolutely NOTHING to better her in any way. Regardless.
Gregory Hall
I read some of her sites old and new. The old ones where she tells about her
experiences with Scientology appears in more than one place. It seems to
have become sort of an anti-Scientology Bible.
> Well, my opinion of Monica is that regardless of what may happened
> to her in or out of Scientology, it is a GIVEN that Scientologists did
> absolutely NOTHING to better her in any way. Regardless.
As the old saying goes. You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. . .
Not even Scientology can perform such miracles. Kat and Claire are a couple
of other examples. Barbara Schwarz is the only female who seems to have been
smart enough and/or well adjusted enough to have absorbed what Scientology
had to offer without self-destructing. I think that's why all the women who
post here hate her so much. She is an example of how a woman with poise,
charm and brains doesn't have to blame her failings on a Church. (Not that
Barbara has any failings of note except possibly that she steadfastly
refuses the advances of the most perfect man in the world for her).
--
Gregory Hall
Peter Schilte
Running out of arguments, Gweggie? And you claim to be "overqualified
for MENSA"? Your way of discussing is more that of a child. A stupid,
ignorant child, that is.
Is this you?
http://offender.fdle.state.fl.us/offender/flyer.do?personId=35467
Peter
"You mocked up your own reactive mind, you mocked up your BTs and you
mocked up your past lives.
Those ARE the EPs (End Phenomenons) of scientology.
L. Ron Hubbard told you so. This is what you are paying for, in no
uncertain terms. Hubbard makes it very clear all the way "UP" the
bridge.
He even told you he was selling you a bridge."
- Ladybird
Lawrence Toomajan
Barbara is a pretty girl. I told her this myself a couple of times.
I have seen some pictures of her on the internet and she is someone to me.
I don't insult the lady because I don't like people to insult me if they
don't have to.
Did you ever notice when some people {no names mentioned} that DO
post to this newsgroup concentrate on things such as "So and so is this"
"So and so is that" "So and so is this other thing" that I never answer?
Do you want to know why?
I don't think I should have to say.
The topic should be what has Scientology done to me or not done to me
or what have done or not done to Scientology and why. And then the truth
comes out.
Like I told Tigger the other day, she is wasting her brains to try and
insult
Barbara because she won't get anywhere.
Barbara Schwarz. What a topic. Sometimes Barbara has called me a liar on
certain things and I don't say nothing because I admit there have been times
in the
past when I *may* have exaggerated an isolated circumstance I may have read
somewhere on the internet to promote it as being true of all Scientologists
without
evidence. But that is in good taste, so in an instance like that if Barbara
had said I
was a liar, then, did you notice the time she called me that, I didn't
disagree?
But then another time, Barbara told me "Larry, you made that whole damn
story on
your web site up". Now that for a fact is not true and there a police
reports and invoices
to prove it, EVEN the Scientology OSA have tried to get in touch with me
these facts
on certain things and I told them to leave me alone.
But, calling someone a fat Oink Oink Pig that is probably troubled about her
involvement
with Scientology is not fair, and is not on topic.
Andrew Robertson
"Gregory Hall" <greg...@home.fake> wrote in message
<snip>
> Monica's no Barbara Schwarz.
And a jolly good thing too. The world needs diversity.
a.r.s. would be poorer place if Barbara and Monica were Stepford wives, as
some might wish.
Andrew
> Gregory Hall
>
Andrew Robertson
"didacticderivative" <didacticd...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:eb235a83-4f04-44e3...@i18g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
<snip>
> I think
Sounds like a bit of hyperbole there, old chap. Does your wife tell you
what to think? Not that there's anything wrong with that. Why else do men
get married.
"Je pense, donc je suis." Some French fellow wrote that. Roger would
probably know him.
But it seems to me that Professor Fettuccine is getting a bad press at the
moment and it might be prudent to distance yourself from him for a while
until certain issues get resolved.
'Guilt by association'. Is that a legal thing? Goodness knows.
Andrew
Here's an interesting book:
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Library/Shelf/pignotti/
Monica Pignotti
None of your beeswax, but less than certain Scientologist celebs we're
all familiar with and 158 is the weight of the average woman in my age
group in America today [I'm neither confirming nor denying your guess,
but this is just to debunk your notion that 150-160 lbs is "oink,
oink"].
http://www.halls.md/chart/women-weight-w.htm
Very few people weigh in their 50s what they weighed in their 20s, so
if unfounded speculation about my weight and why I no longer conform
to anorexic standards of models is the only thing you can find to
attack me with, that's pretty lame.
Monica Pignotti
> "Monica Pignotti" <pigno...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
>
>
> Monica, you are much too easily trolled.
No I'm not. I'm aware he's a troll and respond as I see fit.
Voltaire's Child
"Peter Schilte" <peters...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:d61607e6-aa08-4fe6...@h13g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
He's clearly threatened by most women, preferring the mentally ill variety
because they're so gullible. Either that or he's trolling. Or both.
C
Tigger
Lawrence Toomajan wrote:
(snip)
>
> Barbara is a pretty girl. I told her this myself a couple of times.
> I have seen some pictures of her on the internet and she is someone to me.
But do you know how old those pictures are? Or even if they are
pictures of the "real" B.S.? There's only her word for it and her
"word" is not always credible....in fact, it rarely is. Ditto for
Hall.
>
> I don't insult the lady because I don't like people to insult me if they
> don't have to.
How many people has B.S. insulted and told lies about? Practically
every critic who posts on a.r.s. and then some. Not to mention L.
Ron Hubbard and Marty Rathbun.
>
> Did you ever notice when some people {no names mentioned} that DO
> post to this newsgroup concentrate on things such as "So and so is this"
> "So and so is that" "So and so is this other thing" that I never answer?
>
> Do you want to know why?
>
> I don't think I should have to say.
>
> The topic should be what has Scientology done to me or not done to me
> or what have done or not done to Scientology and why. And then the truth
> comes out.
The truth comes out when people post facts which can be verified.
The bullshit that Hall, the one who can not be named and some others
post are mostly pure bullshit. If no one points out that it is
bullshit, prey tell, how does the truth come out. Sure...... most
critics know that anything Hall, the one who can not be named, etc.
post is bullshit, but not everyone.
>
> Like I told Tigger the other day, she is wasting her brains to try and
> insult
> Barbara because she won't get anywhere.
Well gee, is it "insulting" B. S. when facts are provided to shoot
down her bullshit? Or pointing out the fact that she's delusional,
i.e. batshit crazy? That is not just an opinion. Her posts prove
it is a fact.
But hey, If she doesn't want to be insulted, she shouldn't post
bullshit and lies about everyone who dares to post truth to her lies.
>
> Barbara Schwarz. What a topic. Sometimes Barbara has called me a liar on
> certain things and I don't say nothing because I admit there have been times
> in the
> past when I *may* have exaggerated an isolated circumstance I may have read
> somewhere on the internet to promote it as being true of all Scientologists
> without
> evidence. But that is in good taste, so in an instance like that if Barbara
> had said I
> was a liar, then, did you notice the time she called me that, I didn't
> disagree?
>
> But then another time, Barbara told me "Larry, you made that whole damn
> story on
> your web site up". Now that for a fact is not true and there a police
> reports and invoices
> to prove it, EVEN the Scientology OSA have tried to get in touch with me
> these facts
> on certain things and I told them to leave me alone.
Hey Larry, was your posting truth to lies insulting B.S.? :O)
>
> But, calling someone a fat Oink Oink Pig that is probably troubled about her
> involvement
> with Scientology is not fair, and is not on topic.
Now that is an "insult" and the same kind of insulting bullshit Hall
and the one who can not be named practice on a regular basis.
Hall, with his continuous praise of the one who can not be named,
bullshit attacks on critics, support of Scientology, etc. is (IMO)
desperately trying to bullbait the one who can not be named back to
a.r.s......poor Gweggie, he's lost his one and only "sometimes" fan.
Tigger
P. S. Why quote six, seven or more posts to answer one?
IMO....Delete the overload and cut to the chase.
********************************************
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
********************************************
Had your Bullshit today?
Get your fibre here:
http://outingextremistanti-scientologists.blogspot.com/
Minister Hall's psyche report:
http://www.tioat.net/wiki/index.php/What_Makes_A_Fuckhead
Minister Hall's 4x2 "upside" history:
http://www.kookpedia.net/index.php/Gregory_Hall
Flash
********************************************
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
********************************************
Lawrence Toomajan
news:3c89222d-e59d-4b6c...@g1g2000vbr.googlegroups.com...
Plus Monica Pignotti got pretty upset with them.
But if somebody can prove these people are liars or
bullshitters or whatever that is not in the pipe that is
ok with me.
It just Tigger, that when people start rattling out of
areas they may still have questions about in life,
its time to just sit back and listen.
So that's my policy. Listen to what you are saying to
Barbara and learn. It's OK with me.
Gregory Hall
news:3c89222d-e59d-4b6c...@g1g2000vbr.googlegroups.com...
>
> P. S. Why quote six, seven or more posts to answer one?
> IMO....Delete the overload and cut to the chase.
Advice taken happily! As usual there's little worth replying to when you
post.
--
Gregory Hall
Gregory Hall
> Barbara is a pretty girl. I told her this myself a couple of times.
> I have seen some pictures of her on the internet and she is someone to me.
Barbara is very attractive in more ways than one.
> I don't insult the lady because I don't like people to insult me if they
> don't have to.
>
> Did you ever notice when some people {no names mentioned} that DO
> post to this newsgroup concentrate on things such as "So and so is this"
> "So and so is that" "So and so is this other thing" that I never answer?
>
> Do you want to know why?
I reckon I'll find out without even asking. ;-)
> I don't think I should have to say.
>
> The topic should be what has Scientology done to me or not done to me
> or what have done or not done to Scientology and why. And then the truth
> comes out.
I view discussion groups a little more like a social gathering without the
PC rules of conduct. I don't mind it when folks insult me and I don't think
a lot of folks mind my insulting them because they realize (I hope) that a
good soap opera is more captivating than a bunch of dispassionate
generalities. I think it's the interplay of personalities in a rough house
sort of way that generates the most interest. After all how many times can
one read about the same old lies and allegations about LRH and his church
before it becomes stale?
> Like I told Tigger the other day, she is wasting her brains to try and
> insult Barbara because she won't get anywhere.
I'm afraid Tigger's brains have wasted away a long time ago . . . Just
kidding!
> Barbara Schwarz. What a topic. Sometimes Barbara has called me a liar on
> certain things and I don't say nothing because I admit there have been
> times in the past when I *may* have exaggerated an isolated circumstance I
> may have read somewhere on the internet to promote it as being true of all
> Scientologists without evidence. But that is in good taste, so in an
> instance like that if Barbara had said I was a liar, then, did you notice
> the time she called me that, I didn't disagree?
I think Barbara also likes to play. That's part of her charm. Of course it
sometimes is difficult to tell when a subscriber is playing or serious but
I just have that impression about her.
My assessment of Barbara is that she's part mature and quite structured
woman and part child in the way she thinks and acts. Such a brat sometimes
and such a vamp at others. She's one cool lady.
> But then another time, Barbara told me "Larry, you made that whole damn
> story on your web site up". Now that for a fact is not true and there a
> police reports and invoices to prove it, EVEN the Scientology OSA have
> tried to get in touch with me these facts on certain things and I told
> them to leave me alone.
>
> But, calling someone a fat Oink Oink Pig that is probably troubled about
> her involvement with Scientology is not fair, and is not on topic.
Perhaps you are correct about this but somebody needed to tell Monica to
stop taking herself so freaking seriously. She'd be better off doing like
you do - just let some things pass her by and give it a rest with her
constant defensive posture.
--
Gregory Hall
Gregory Hall
news:h7ss6l$mpi$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
IAWTP! But, with one observation. Turning either of them into Stepford wives
would be quite the challenge. Both are stubborn beyond belief, God bless
them.
--
Gregory Hall
Gregory Hall
news:d61607e6-aa08-4fe6...@h13g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
> Running out of arguments, Gweggie? And you claim to be "overqualified
> for MENSA"? Your way of discussing is more that of a child. A stupid,
> ignorant child, that is.
One must treat with a person in such manner as they are capable of
understanding.
Negative. That's just my Usenet stalker trying (and failing) to bother me
with his stupidity. He thinks he can get me to stop posting by his posting
that anonymous remailer nonsense. I guess everybody has noticed his having
failed miserably. Actually, one hasn't "arrived" on Usenet unless and until
one acquires a stalker or two like him. It's funny actually because every
time he posts it's like he's a puppet on a string. I yank his string and he
reacts. Bwahahahhahahahahah.
--
Gregory Hall
Gregory Hall
news:KpidnZbsvKGM7z_X...@posted.internetamerica...
> He's clearly threatened by most women, preferring the mentally ill variety
> because they're so gullible. Either that or he's trolling. Or both.
Right on the first count, Claire, but not for the reasons you probably
think. What threatens me about most modern western women is the fact that
most of them are clearly insane. Most live in some sort of dream world where
they set themselves us as rulers and attempt to make up the rules and they
bitch, moan and complain when their made-up rules don't fit reality. As if
reality was something they could manipulate. Bah! As if any real man could
be happy trying to fit the mold they expect him to fit. (a mold with no room
for masculinity where every mold is a Mommy mold).
What you call the mentally ill variety of woman is the type of woman who
does not reject reality. One who accepts her true role as a helpmate. In
other words, a woman who thinks more like a man - logical, grounded in
reality and realizing that her happiness comes primarily from fulfilling her
role as helpmate to a man who also is grounded in reality. No matter how
hard you might try you can't turn a lump of coal into a diamond by squeezing
it in your frail, little hand. BTW, all women should look closely at their
hands from time to time. If anything should clue you all into reality it is
the fact that your hands are delicate and weak - just like the rest of you.
Those women who accept this are the happiest.
--
Gregory Hall
Gregory Hall
<snip>
> None of your beeswax, but less than certain Scientologist celebs we're
> all familiar with and 158 is the weight of the average woman in my age
> group in America today [I'm neither confirming nor denying your guess,
> but this is just to debunk your notion that 150-160 lbs is "oink,
> oink"].
>
> http://www.halls.md/chart/women-weight-w.htm
>
> Very few people weigh in their 50s what they weighed in their 20s, so
> if unfounded speculation about my weight and why I no longer conform
> to anorexic standards of models is the only thing you can find to
> attack me with, that's pretty lame.
Monica, your reply says it all:
1) I hit close to the mark with my guess
2) You are, indeed, defensive about your being overweight
3) You see the effects of being overweight in your movements and in your
energy level (Nobody's called you a 'hottie' for a long time and you miss
hearing it)
4) You use age as a crutch for being overweight
5) You've bought into this anorexic crap where they call any woman who is
healthy and thin and who can model clothes diseased as a defense against
their own obesity.
6) You are a brainwashed, feminist liberal.
This is what men like women to look like. What women your age can look like
if they eat right and are active and fit.
http://nudes.hegre-art.com/gallhit/105420/367/1/2/0
I'm sure you'd call her anorexic but actually, she has the physique that
women were created to have.
--
Gregory Hall
Gregory Hall
I'll give you credit for one thing. Unlike some people you don't yell
"TROLL" and run any time you aren't equipped to proffer some sort of
rebuttal to a post. You don't join a discussion group and proudly proclaim
to the whole world that you are a failure at discussion. (There must be a
name for the mental illness that causes people to act like that - I'll have
to do some research on it as I've never read any that I can think of.)
However, there is a dilemma you set up for yourself, Monica. By responding
you make my point that it's generally all about Monica. So, you see, either
way you can't win. This is why most women cannot compete with most men in
any logical endeavor.
--
Gregory Hall
Lawrence Toomajan
> "Lawrence Toomajan" <thed...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:4aa1e6e3$1...@news2.lightlink.com...
{SNIP}
> I view discussion groups a little more like a social gathering without the
> PC rules of conduct. I don't mind it when folks insult me and I don't
> think a lot of folks mind my insulting them because they realize (I hope)
> that a good soap opera is more captivating than a bunch of dispassionate
> generalities. I think it's the interplay of personalities in a rough house
> sort of way that generates the most interest. After all how many times can
> one read about the same old lies and allegations about LRH and his church
> before it becomes stale?
Gregory:
Discussion groups {Usenet} are on their way out}.
Didn't you see my recent posting that Verizon one of the
biggest ISP's in the world is cancelling ALL newsgroup
services? The reason is because people now use E-Mail,
Blogs, message boards and YouTube to communicate their
information.
So because this is a fact of life and not something brought on
by the particular acts of any one person, there is no reason
for people who "retire" from A.R.S. or Usenet to do so
with foul feelings towards other people they have shared the
service with.
Read what some of these "famous Scientology critics" have
to say to each other as A.R.S. peacfully is laid to rest.
People calling people like Monica names is part of that general
scenario.
--
Read "The Diary Of A Scientologist"
http://mysite.verizon.net/toomajan/
Larry
{SNIP}
Eldon
> "Gregory Hall" <gregh...@home.fake> wrote in message
>
> news:33rbdc....@news.alt.net...
>
> > "Lawrence Toomajan" <thedi...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> >news:4aa1e6e3$1...@news2.lightlink.com...
>
> {SNIP}
>
> > I view discussion groups a little more like a social gathering without the
> > PC rules of conduct. I don't mind it when folks insult me and I don't
> > think a lot of folks mind my insulting them because they realize (I hope)
> > that a good soap opera is more captivating than a bunch of dispassionate
> > generalities. I think it's the interplay of personalities in a rough house
> > sort of way that generates the most interest. After all how many times can
> > one read about the same old lies and allegations about LRH and his church
> > before it becomes stale?
>
> Gregory:
>
> Discussion groups {Usenet} are on their way out}.
>
> Didn't you see my recent posting that Verizon one of the
> biggest ISP's in the world is cancelling ALL newsgroup
> services? The reason is because people now use E-Mail,
> Blogs, message boards and YouTube to communicate their
> information.
The reason may also be that Google Groups makes it easy enough to
access newsgroups through a browser. Some people may turn up their
noses and say it's not a "real" newsgroup reader, but it works OK in
my estimation. In fact, Google salvaged the Deja Vu database, which
was a great service.
I don't think Google Groups is such a great success. Another factor is
that the discussion group thing has proliferated, what with Yahoo
Groups and so many boards on websites. So the market has been
splintered.
Lawrence Toomajan
news:8920be12-8c01-4da7...@w10g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
**The reason may also be that Google Groups makes it easy enough to
**access newsgroups through a browser. Some people may turn up their
**noses and say it's not a "real" newsgroup reader, but it works OK in
**my estimation. In fact, Google salvaged the Deja Vu database, which
**was a great service.
**I don't think Google Groups is such a great success. Another factor is
**that the discussion group thing has proliferated, what with Yahoo
**Groups and so many boards on websites. So the market has been
**splintered.
They are not such a great success because even in your post
it seems as though there are no salutation marks to distinguish
between whose statements are actually whose.
Eldon
> "Eldon" <EldonB...@aol.com> wrote in message
Really? I can see them using Google Groups. BTW, there is a
distinction between usenet access and groups people can start that are
hosted on Google. It's the latter that I meant weren't a great
success. I think many people at least use the search feature to find
archived posts.
sapphire truth
Tigger,
No one cares what Monica Pignotti looks like.
More importantly, no one cares what you think. Your master, Patricia
Greenway, would prefer that you didn't think at all, as a matter of
fact.
You don't do much more than serve as a poor subsitute for Google
Alerts.
Please go and learn how to do something useful.
Tigger
Please let me know when you are crowned Ruler of the World, COWARDLY
TROLL. At that time, I "might" obey your commands. Until then,
you can FOAD.
Tigger
Tigger
>This is what men like women to look like. What women your age can look like
> if they eat right and are active and fit.
>
> http://nudes.hegre-art.com/gallhit/105420/367/1/2/0
>
> I'm sure you'd call her anorexic but actually, she has the physique that
> women were created to have.
LOL....how ironic. You just posted a link to a porn site, which
strongly suggests what many have claimed.....You are a PERVERT.
Way to go Hall..
Tigger
>
> --
> Gregory Hall
********************************************
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
********************************************
Had your Bullshit today?
Get your fibre here:
http://outingextremistanti-scientologists.blogspot.com/
Minister Hall's psyche report:
http://www.tioat.net/wiki/index.php/What_Makes_A_Fuckhead
Minister Hall's 4x2 "upside" history:
http://www.kookpedia.net/index.php/Gregory_Hall
Flash
********************************************
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
********************************************
Gregory Hall
> Pervert Troll Gregory Hall wrote:
>
>>This is what men like women to look like. What women your age can look
>>like
>> if they eat right and are active and fit.
>>
>> http://nudes.hegre-art.com/gallhit/105420/367/1/2/0
>>
>> I'm sure you'd call her anorexic but actually, she has the physique that
>> women were created to have.
>
> LOL....how ironic. You just posted a link to a porn site, which
> strongly suggests what many have claimed.....You are a PERVERT.
> Way to go Hall..
>
> Tigger
Since when is art porn? Can you read, Shirley. Hegre *Art*? Duh! The
Supreme Court has declared that the naked female form by itself and not
engaged in sex acts is NOT porn. Get a clue woman. I know you're very old
but I didn't realize you were a prude as well.
--
Gregory Hall
Andrew Robertson
"Gregory Hall" <greg...@home.fake> wrote in message
> "Voltaire's Child" <Voltair...@ymail.com> wrote in message
> news:KpidnZbsvKGM7z_X...@posted.internetamerica...
>
>> He's clearly threatened by most women, preferring the mentally ill
>> variety because they're so gullible. Either that or he's trolling. Or
>> both.
>
> Right on the first count, Claire, but not for the reasons you probably
> think. What threatens me about most modern western women is the fact that
> most of them are clearly insane. Most live in some sort of dream world
> where they set themselves us as rulers and attempt to make up the rules
> and they bitch, moan and complain when their made-up rules don't fit
> reality.
<snip>
'The Stepford Wives'
Based on an original idea by Gregory Hall
http://enwikipedia.org/wiki/The_Stepford_Wives
The story concerns Joanna Eberhart, a photographer and young mother who
begins to suspect that the frighteningly submissive housewives in her new
idyllic Connecticut neighborhood may be robots created by their husbands.
The novel has been viewed by some as a satire on stereotypical American
housewives, as well as a study on feminism.
[...]
The premise involves the married men of the fictional town of Stepford,
Connecticut, and their fawning, submissive, impossibly beautiful wives. The
protagonist is Joanna Eberhart, a talented photographer newly arrived from
New York City with her husband and children, eager to start a new life. As
time goes on, she becomes increasingly disturbed by the zombie-like Stepford
wives, especially when she sees her once independent-minded friends - fellow
new arrivals to Stepford - turn into mindless, docile housewives overnight.
Andrew
> Gregory Hall
Andrew Robertson
"Gregory Hall" <greg...@home.fake> wrote in message
<snip>
>>> http://nudes.hegre-art.com/gallhit/105420/367/1/2/0
> Since when is art porn? Can you read, Shirley. Hegre *Art*? Duh! The
> Supreme Court has declared that the naked female form by itself and not
> engaged in sex acts is NOT porn. Get a clue woman. I know you're very old
> but I didn't realize you were a prude as well.
I clicked on the link you thoughtfully provided Gregory, and then on the
'Continue Tour' button, and whilst the women displayed were undeniably
attractive I was surprised at their absence of pubic hair.
Now, the only females who don't naturally have pubic hair are pre-pubescent
girls. So what sort of man would want to look at pictures of adult women
with shaved pussies? Well, there is a name for them. They're called
pedophiles. And if they can't find children to molest, they try to turn
grown-up women into little girls so they can dominate and rape them.
I hope you're not like that.
Andrew
> Gregory Hall
Voltaire's Child
"Gregory Hall" <greg...@home.fake> wrote in message
> "Voltaire's Child" <Voltair...@ymail.com> wrote in message
> news:KpidnZbsvKGM7z_X...@posted.internetamerica...
>
>> He's clearly threatened by most women, preferring the mentally ill
>> variety because they're so gullible. Either that or he's trolling. Or
>> both.
>
> Right on the first count, Claire, but not for the reasons you probably
> think. What threatens me about most modern western women is the fact that
> most of them are clearly insane. Most live in some sort of dream world
> where they set themselves us as rulers and attempt to make up the rules
> and they bitch, moan and complain when their made-up rules don't fit
> reality. As if reality was something they could manipulate. Bah! As if any
> real man could be happy trying to fit the mold they expect him to fit. (a
> mold with no room for masculinity where every mold is a Mommy mold).
You invent motives for people you don't know then you libel them.
C
Gregory Hall
There you go again, Claire, playing the victim card. You and your overbroad
definition of libel. You make the word libel so broad on purpose - just so
you can pretend to be a victim. Yours is a good demonstration of the liberal
mindset. "Woe is me, I'm a nice person but people are so mean to me, they
refuse to see it my way, they won't toe the line, they don't act on the
basis of their feelings, they don't even consider my feelings, they refuse
to be politically correct, they libel and slander. Oh, why (sniff, sniff) do
they have to be so rude to me?"
Has any liberal ever stopped whining for a long enough time (perhaps a
minute or so) to reflect upon how pathetic they appear to us reasonable
folks?
--
Gregory Hall
Voltaire's Child
"Gregory Hall" <greg...@home.fake> wrote in message
> "Voltaire's Child" <Voltair...@ymail.com> wrote in message
> news:AJWdnZQx55_6rTjX...@posted.internetamerica...
>>
>> "Gregory Hall" <greg...@home.fake> wrote in message
>> news:33rcce....@news.alt.net...
>>> "Voltaire's Child" <Voltair...@ymail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:KpidnZbsvKGM7z_X...@posted.internetamerica...
>>>
>>>> He's clearly threatened by most women, preferring the mentally ill
>>>> variety because they're so gullible. Either that or he's trolling. Or
>>>> both.
>>>
>>> Right on the first count, Claire, but not for the reasons you probably
>>> think. What threatens me about most modern western women is the fact
>>> that most of them are clearly insane. Most live in some sort of dream
>>> world where they set themselves us as rulers and attempt to make up the
>>> rules and they bitch, moan and complain when their made-up rules don't
>>> fit reality. As if reality was something they could manipulate. Bah! As
>>> if any real man could be happy trying to fit the mold they expect him to
>>> fit. (a mold with no room for masculinity where every mold is a Mommy
>>> mold).
>>
>> You invent motives for people you don't know then you libel them.
>>
>> C
>
>
> There you go again, Claire, playing the victim card.
No, I'm no victim. Never considered myself to be one.
>You and your overbroad definition of libel.
<shrugging> Some of your commentary definitely comes close and probably
fully qualifies.
>You make the word libel so broad on purpose - just so you can pretend to be
>a victim. Yours is a good demonstration of the liberal mindset.
LOL! My a.r.s. friends must be rolling in the aisles on that one. I'm not a
liberal, to put it mildly.
>"Woe is me, I'm a nice person but people are so mean to me, they refuse to
>see it my way, they won't toe the line, they don't act on the basis of
>their feelings, they don't even consider my feelings, they refuse to be
>politically correct, they libel and slander. Oh, why (sniff, sniff) do they
>have to be so rude to me?"
I'm not upset or weepy at all. I just get a kick out of watching you bring
Kat, Tigger, Henri, myself and others into a.r.s. discussions in the form of
many pot shots and lies, and attributing non existent motives, commentary,
practices, and political affilitations to the afore mentioned individuals.
>
> Has any liberal ever stopped whining for a long enough time (perhaps a
> minute or so) to reflect upon how pathetic they appear to us reasonable
> folks?
>
>
I don't know. There aren't any liberals at my house.
C
Gregory Hall
That's quite a stretch, Andrew.
Your logic is totally lacking. It is commonplace for western women to shave
or wax their pubic hair, underarm hair and their leg hair, too. (Some even
remove facial hair, especially on the upper lip and some pluck a stray hair
or two from around their nipples. As a matter of fact, hair removal
procedures are big business. Who wants to see pubic hair sticking out the
sides of a bikini bottom? Gross! It could also be said that the removal of
underarm, leg and facial hair makes a mature women look like a child as
children don't have underarm, leg and facial hair. Are you a pedophile
because you enjoy women who shave their legs and underarms?
--
Gregory Hall
Gregory Hall
Delusional! I'm not talking politically liberal. I'm talking socially
liberal. No social conservative would post clitoral vibrator trash to a
public forum, for example. Barbara is a social conservative. You are a
social liberal. Case closed.
--
Gregory Hall
Voltaire's Child
"Gregory Hall" <greg...@home.fake> wrote in message
>
>
> Delusional! I'm not talking politically liberal. I'm talking socially
> liberal. No social conservative would post clitoral vibrator trash to a
> public forum, for example.
Well, ~I~ posted it once. You posted and reposted and reposted it.
So you mean to tell me you're a liberal?
C
Gregory Hall
Posting examples of liberal immorality (lamely labeled as satire) is hardly
being liberal. People read it and then they conclude: "Ya know, Hall is
right! A decent, moral woman wouldn't do things like that, what an
embarrassment she must be to her husband who should have taken a strap to
her long ago."
--
Gregory Hall
Eldon
> "Voltaire's Child" <Voltaires_Ch...@ymail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:PfydnRo92egOOTjX...@posted.internetamerica...
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Gregory Hall" <gregh...@home.fake> wrote in message
> >news:340sfl....@news.alt.net...
>
> >> Delusional! I'm not talking politically liberal. I'm talking socially
> >> liberal. No social conservative would post clitoral vibrator trash to a
> >> public forum, for example.
>
> > Well, ~I~ posted it once. You posted and reposted and reposted it.
>
> > So you mean to tell me you're a liberal?
>
> > C
>
> Posting examples of liberal immorality (lamely labeled as satire) is hardly
> being liberal. People read it and then they conclude: "Ya know, Hall is
> right! A decent, moral woman wouldn't do things like that, what an
> embarrassment she must be to her husband who should have taken a strap to
> her long ago."
>
> --
> Gregory Hall
Gweggie, I wouldn't be surprised if her hubbie didn't track you down
and take a strap to you. You are in a precarious position, you know.
Or maybe you don't.
realpch
I certainly hope he's not either. Women and girls don't have such an
easy time of it, and I well recall the spectre of slavering old idiots
appearing on the scene as early as my eleventh year. An extremely
upsetting feature of being a young female. However, I sometimes read a
very interesting board for ladies known as "providers" and it would seem
that hairless genitalia for women are quite the current fashion. They
are a sister site to a brother site of so-called "mongers". It's been
quite educational. But of course, the girls on the link provided
obviously were chosen because they looked like jail bait.
Peach
--
Extra! Extra! Read All About It!
Save some dough, save some grief:
http://www.xenu.net
http://www.scientology-lies.com
Gregory Hall
> Gweggie, I wouldn't be surprised if her hubbie didn't track you down
> and take a strap to you. You are in a precarious position, you know.
> Or maybe you don't.
How can I know something that is pure conjecture on your part? And, if he
should be so stupid (and he might be considering who he married) to attempt
assault on my person he will learn really fast that a strap will not avail
him against a shotgun.
--
Gregory Hall
Gregory Hall
news:4AA6C261...@aol.com...
The way we humans make a fetish out of hair, not much surprises me about
hair fashion. Women aren't the only ones who do strange things with their
body hair. Men do, too. These days a hirsute man is unfashionable. There is
a big, growing industry that removes hair from men's backs, backsides, and
abdomens. Some little chest hair is seemingly OK for the present time but
who knows when that will be out of fashion as well.
USA women seem to cultivate long locks on their heads but hate the spectacle
of a single hair most anywhere else on their bodies except perhaps for the
*runway* style of pubic hair shave. The rest of their bodies must be
smooth, however. Some even do their arms.
Men are unfortunately turning into the same sort of vain creature as women
of late. Bearded men are considered primitive which is unfortunate because
the natural state of a mature man is to be bearded. This scraping off of
facial hair to the bare skin is creepy, IMO. Why does a man wish to have his
face look like a boy's face?
--
Gregory Hall
Voltaire's Child
"Gregory Hall" <greg...@home.fake> wrote in message
You've stated that you object to the posting of the parody onto a.r.s. But
you've posted it far more than I ever did.
Case closed.
C