For those who didn't follow the thread about Leslie's credentials, nor the posts at alt.support.tourette, here's the final cap to this sorry affair.
Leslie Packer made a veiled threat to harass me on other NGs and my forum, by refering that it would come from AST. So I reposted her post at AST to make them aware of what Leslie might be up to, in their name. In return, Leslie cried foul and complained to AOL about being "off-topic" (ironic, because that was her threat post was!), trying to censor her own abusive ways. It backfired, because her friends here were allowed to crosspost and answer unmolested. So that censor tactic didn't work, so Leslie blew up yet again.
This is *not* acceptable behaviour from a psychotherapist. Friendship is not blind to outright abuse. Making threats to harass another, and now calling me to "blow my brains out," is a serious breech of professional conduct. No professional is "off duty," when they proclaim to be a professional in the first place (no blurring of lines crap about her not being my therapist, she claims to be a psychotherapist, then she should conduct herself as a credit to that profession, not a mockery). Read the post and see for yourself -- her full post is included:
>Tuesday was one of the worst days of my life. I had to call 911 and >have my daughter taken into the hospital. After years of struggling >to keep my kids out of the hospital, there was nothing we could do at >home to keep her safe. Right now, she is in a severe manic phase and >they are trying to bring her down, but she's got a long haul ahead of >her. >She will be in the hospital for about a month. It is not near here, >as we wanted to get her the best care we could and that meant a >hospital 1 1/2 hours away. So I will be running back and forth and >unable to keep up with news until things settle down.
Meanwhile, someone I know has just moved to hospice, and probably won't make it through the weekend. He successfully kept 2 forms of rare cancer in check for 10 years, but a third one came out of nowhere. This war hero, who was the only survivor of his ship, put up an amazing battle. A good man, I'm really going to miss him.
>As to the loons from spp who come here to lie and disort and >criminally defame
Well, just have to mix a on topic post with some of the latest MI Stigmatizing langauge. What makes this unexcusable is that Leslie's a psychotherapist, who has direct contact with the MH population.
Yeah, and the TS folks here just support having their kids ridiculed as a "loon," "kook," "Frankenstein," "garbage," "crazy," and other slurs.
Should've thought about it Leslie when you rode that NAMI CONSUMER ADVOCATE lie, back in October / November (folks just read it for yourself). Was funny then to you, until recently the person in question was caught fudging by the very same folks she was threatening 3 lawsuits against. These are your friends, Leslie. You tried to keep it a secret over here, but when you make veiled threats of trying to spam NGs I frequent, don't cry foul when I report your behaviour to the NG YOU frequent. I have a right to defend myself from such harassment, and you should've known not to make such veiled threats in light of the crap that occurred to me recently.
What's criminal is that you support folks who tell a MH Consumer with past SI behaviours to FOAD, and now YOU asking to blow my brains out. That's a serious lapse of professional ethics.
This is your TS "leader" folks in it's full light.
>well, you folks in a.s.t. have enough knowledge >of me to realize that they are making assertions but wisely do not >even try to post message IDs and full contexts as the truth does not >support their paranoid ideation and defamatory comments.
Well, Leslie you purposely deleted AST from the crosspost to post a veiled threat to me, thinking it'll go nowhere. Sorry, after what Rauni and crew have done on and offline, I will repost their's and your's crap that is abusive. I will not be your "victim," nor tolerate your MH Stigmatizing ways.
Oh, you don't want me to post full details, or this NG would be flooded with the *truth* about you. Love for you to complain to AOL once they preview that crap.
I don't complain to ISPs, and offline until I'm personally attacked, Leslie. When there's a clear boundary crossing, I will. And the thing is folks listen, because I don't abuse the system with complaints, and I'll provide them the COMPLETE references -- no packets, no snippets.
AOL and other ISPs must have a log about you by now. Constant complainers are treated like uninvited salespeople, if you didn't know. But thanks for complaining to AOL.
>To >paraphrase Jack Nicholson in "A Few Good Men," they can't handle the >truth when it doesn't match their fervently held beliefs and agendas. >I was and am scientifically conservative
Too bad Leslie that you used that character as an example -- he was the CO in charge of his men, and allowed "red alerts" (hazing of Marines who didn't abeit by social conventions of a particular unit -- which is illegal by the Military code of justice). Thanks for letting folks know what you think is "right" and "ethical."
Don't believe me, rent the video yourself.
Again, I have absolutely no agendas, Leslie. I just report my direct experience, or what I've seen, read or know personally.
It's fervent when you try to hurt another. I called your marker, and it's because you crossed both professional and personal ethical boundaries.
>-- I do the same in spp that >I do here, which is to protest when people make sweeping statements >that go beyond what the research supports.
Stigmatizing folks, and then making veiled threats isn't protesting, it's abuse.
There's plenty of direct experience out there about CSA as being horrid, but you don't want Survivors to speak up or out about it. How about your TS clients?? Do you just allow those who agree with *your* views to have any say here and elsewhere? You just shown here recently you're a censor. What else are you trying to hush up?
You complain about my character, Leslie, so if the shoe fits wear it yourself.
>Because I have held true >to that conservatism, they have tried to brand me a pedophile, a >pedophile supporter, and God knows what else.
You're actions speak of you being a pedophile supporter, Leslie. You don't like that, but look at the evidence. Whenever someone posts something about CSA that disagrees with some FMSF and NAMBLA agenda, your friends and you come out to denounce it. Even though there's thousands of pure scientifically conducted studies that show CSA is harmful, you want so desperately to cling onto some meta-analysis, or some other non-peer reviewed study to support that raping kids isn't harmful. No child asks to be raped -- none, zip, zero.
A pedophile (and their supporters) try to excuse it by bad "science," state that a child wants to be raped (they just hate that word "rape," it's only "love" to them when they tear the insides out of a child, emotionally and physically), and that it's the child who came onto them -- which makes it's justifiable to them. Nevermind self-control. Then there's a whole other agenda of trying to legalize (the NAMBLA line) pedophilia to make these perps get away with harming more kids.
I'm a Survivor, Leslie, you can try to fool others but you will never full someone who's lived through it. It was wrong then, a child FEELS it's wrong, and it's wrong today.
>When they don't have >the facts,
I'm a walking experience of fact. So are thousands of other Survivors of abuse. They know directly the effects of it, something no one else does. It's like trying to explain the daily life of TS to the very same doctors I've read on this NG. No one would understand more than the population that's affected by a condition.
>they resort to such innuendo and name-calling and attempts >to smear character.
No Leslie that's your tactics -- it's YOU who started with the Stigmatizing line, ran off to AOL to censor, *and* made a veiled threat to spam not only Usenet NGs where I visit, but my own BPD forum. That's the facts, Leslie.
>Unfortunately for them, I don't back off.
Same with me. Attack me, and folks will know about it. Don't attack me, and I won't need to post about you.
> I >will not let them use pseudoscience or bastardize science to serve >their moral agendas -- even if I agree with them on the moral issue.
I don't NEED science to prove to me that CSA is harmful, I'm living proof of it! You'd cry out about my BPD symptoms, but fail to see that a lot of Borderlines are victims of abuse. As well as MPD/DIDs. We're walking testimonials of how abuse messes with one's mind, and how it leaves a legacy years on down the road. YOU don't want to admit it, but go on with this "pseudoscience" crap to try to discount Survivors of their OWN feelings, and experiences.
Read the hard numbers, Leslie, and how many of the MI have experienced abuse. That's a shockingly high number, and no one can refute that abuse is harmful with such numbers -- except for folks who in fact who use "pseudoscience" to debunk legitamate studies with thousands of subjects.
Meta-analysis is previewing other studies and rounding up the statistics, it's not conducting a study with human controls from the conception to the final review.
>So what about Leslie's credentials? As far as I can see, they still look >impeccable.
>smw
One can be trained by Freud and Jung themselves, it doesn't mean that the person is any better at wisdom because of the training. Leslie lacked to know the difference between wisdom, and being foolish to herself, and her profession.
Harassment and death threats, professionally ethical to you, Silke? Or is this another blurring the lines between excusing the behaviour, and bashing the opponent?
This isn't a word game...
TOR Consumer Advocate
--
"Raoul, Raoul, Raoul and the Kings of Spain Making it plain, making it sane To turn this loss into a gain"
------Raoul and the Kings of Spain -- 1995 -- Tears For Fears
Dr. Packer's credentials certainly are impeccable. Of course I could be wrong, and a high school dropout could have the key all licensing boards are looking for. NOT!
And considering the post this idiot, erebus1...@aol.com , took off from, it is clear evidence of her narcissistic cruelty. Would that tor would follow Narcissus, as suggested, but alas, she needs to be cruel to everyone. This is her life now: Unproductive, flittering about trashing everyone eventually. And completely without any self knowledge, her life is a lie - for she does not recognize those lies when presented her.
One informative, but not generally, post in a year's torent of crap is not useful to usenet or its readers. Tor is simply self aggrandized redundant and bilious bilge water best kill filed. A true waste of bandwidth.
In sci.psychology.psychotherapy article <Cdwa3.1389$FK.28...@news.itd.umich.edu> Silke-Maria Weineck <sm...@umich.edu> wrote:
: : For those who didn't follow the thread about Leslie's credentials,
: So what about Leslie's credentials? As far as I can see, they still look : impeccable.
: smw
-- John M. Price, PhD jmpr...@calweb.com Life: Chemistry, but with feeling! | PGP Key on request or by finger! Email responses to my Usenet articles will be posted at my discretion. Comoderator: sci.psychology.psychotherapy.moderated Atheist# 683
My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment. - Albert Einstein - Letter to M. Berrkowitz, October 25, 1950 Einstein Archive 59-215 from "The Quotable Einstein" by Alice Calaprice
In article <19990618150925.27925.00000...@ng-fd1.aol.com>, erebus1...@aol.comTFF-FAN (EREBUS1845) wrote:
>From: Silke-Maria Weineck <sm...@umich.edu> >Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 18:28:50 GMT >Message-ID: <Cdwa3.1389$FK.28...@news.itd.umich.edu> >So what about Leslie's credentials? As far as I can see, they >still look impeccable. >smw >One can be trained by Freud and Jung themselves, it doesn't >mean that the person is any better at wisdom because of the >training.
That's for sure. As I've always said, Leslie Packer's judgment is extremely poor.
>Harassment and death threats, professionally ethical to you, >Silke?
She probably thinks she's still in a Jackie Collins novel.
Of course it's not acceptable, but some of these people are so sociopathic that it does no good to appeal to their "higher" nature. I would prefer to appeal to their licensing boards.
Karen Jones
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
DO NOT let her toy and straighen herself out, wins off group supports privately or apologise, or play post her stuff expose it because abuse thrives on silence,and keeping yhe 'peace' SO do it,post it now.There should be no place to hide and nothing kept private when threats are made.
-- John M. Price, PhD jmpr...@calweb.com Life: Chemistry, but with feeling! | PGP Key on request or by finger! Email responses to my Usenet articles will be posted at my discretion. Comoderator: sci.psychology.psychotherapy.moderated Atheist# 683
VIRGO (Aug 23 - Sept 22) You are the logical type and hate disorder. This nitpicking is sickening to your friends. You are cold and unemotional and sometimes fall asleep while making love. Virgos make good bus drivers.
Read the post, Silke and not try to excuse it offhand.
I have witnessed her help
>online dozens of people, though, by providing professionally informed >advice, naming valuable resources, summarizing the state of the field wrt >Tourette, etc. You, however, have not contributed a single valuable post >in all the years I've intermittently glanced at your stuff.
I don't care if she's the Messiah, she told me to "blow my brains out." Now, Silke if you want to blur the lines, that your right, but you know I don't give an iota for your opinion above.
You just disqualified yourself, Silke. I haven't been here for years. Shoot I've been online just over a year.
In other
>words, you're a twit.
In other words you're an ivory tower guardian, who can't see past your nose.
Leslie is a woman, a professional, and a Mensch.
She's an abuser and is exposed.
TOR Consumer Advocate
--
"Raoul, Raoul, Raoul and the Kings of Spain Making it plain, making it sane To turn this loss into a gain"
------Raoul and the Kings of Spain -- 1995 -- Tears For Fears
>>One can be trained by Freud and Jung themselves, it doesn't >>mean that the person is any better at wisdom because of the >>training. Karena wrote: >That's for sure. As I've always said, Leslie Packer's >judgment is extremely poor.
I still can't believe she'd waste everything to spout off like that, Curio. I've had times when I wanted to state some vile things, but common sense prevails.
Wished she'd remember the Serenity prayer!
I stated:
>>Harassment and death threats, professionally ethical to you, >>Silke? Karena wrote: >She probably thinks she's still in a Jackie Collins novel.
LOL! It's all a black comedy here isn't it? Where friends of friends protect others because they have religious and other ties. A clique that one has to protect another to get in. And why some folks (like Sara) wonder why they just don't fit in with anyone here. Or they become like Gene, compromise for security.
>Of course it's not acceptable, but some of these people >are so sociopathic that it does no good to appeal >to their "higher" nature.
Yes, and I can see that's very evident. How can *anyone* justify "blow your brains out?" Only one with a pathological need to destroy another.
I would prefer to appeal to
>their licensing boards.
It all depends on what happens.
TOR Consumer Advocate
--
"Raoul, Raoul, Raoul and the Kings of Spain Making it plain, making it sane To turn this loss into a gain"
------Raoul and the Kings of Spain -- 1995 -- Tears For Fears
In sci.psychology.psychotherapy article <19990618193659.25795.00001...@ng-cl1.aol.com> EREBUS1845 <erebus1...@aol.comTFF-FAN> wrote:
: I don't care if she's the Messiah, she told me to "blow my brains out." Now,
That is not a threat. That is a suggestion.
Do you need to learn the difference? Are you going to go the silly and ignorant 'bander' path again? Try a dictionary.
Silly kook, Usenet's for readers!
-- John M. Price, PhD jmpr...@calweb.com Life: Chemistry, but with feeling! | PGP Key on request or by finger! Email responses to my Usenet articles will be posted at my discretion. Comoderator: sci.psychology.psychotherapy.moderated Atheist# 683
It is better that ten guilty escape than one innocent suffer. - Sir William Blackstone Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1765
In sci.psychology.psychotherapy article <7kess0$ga...@nnrp1.deja.com> k...@hotmail.com wrote:
Tsk, tsk. Lost another account. Funny how you cannot hear what that is saying to you.
: I don't like that Leslie Packer tells both of us to blow our : brains out or John Price's reference to my death over the : years.
You mean this piece? - from an old post:
=== begin extract === : Looking up research written under someones name does not verify for : me that they are in fact the person I'm interacting with on the internet.
And you the stench of a long dead crustacean can say that in all honesty. We only have your scentful desecration of life to tell you were here. In that, there is the goodness of your absence. I am sure it would be much more hidious to see the depraved and flacid caricture of concinnity your immature peccable self has become. One might hope for the curse of Moses, but face on to prevent memories of the event.
You are simply charnel wax, nothing more. You pollute by your very presence humanity itself, and melt in the heat of truth.
By your continued spillage of billious screed you despoil even the language.
FOAD. === end extract ===
-- John M. Price, PhD jmpr...@calweb.com Life: Chemistry, but with feeling! | PGP Key on request or by finger! Email responses to my Usenet articles will be posted at my discretion. Comoderator: sci.psychology.psychotherapy.moderated Atheist# 683
When two distinct objects are unlike to each other, it is only what we expect; things are in their common way; and therefore they make no impression on the imagination: but when two distinct objects have a resemblance, we are struck, we attend to them, and we are pleased. The mind of man has naturally a far greater alacrity and satisfaction in tracing resemblances than in searching for differences: because by making resemblances we produce new images; we unite, we create, we enlarge our stock; but in making distinctions we offer no food at all to the imagination; the task itself is more severe and irksome, and what pleasure we derive from it is something of a negative and indirect nature. . . . Hence it is that men are much more naturally inclined to belief than to incredulity. - Edmund Burke
> And I don't believe for a minute that >>Leslie made a "death threat" against anybody.
>Read the post, Silke and not try to excuse it offhand.
> I have witnessed her help >>online dozens of people, though, by providing professionally informed >>advice, naming valuable resources, summarizing the state of the field wrt >>Tourette, etc. You, however, have not contributed a single valuable post >>in all the years I've intermittently glanced at your stuff.
>I don't care if she's the Messiah, she told me to "blow my brains out." Now, >Silke if you want to blur the lines, that your right, but you know I don't give >an iota for your opinion above.
>You just disqualified yourself, Silke. I haven't been here for years. Shoot >I've been online just over a year.
> In other >>words, you're a twit.
>In other words you're an ivory tower guardian, who can't see past your nose.
> Leslie is a woman, a professional, and a Mensch.
>She's an abuser and is exposed.
>TOR >Consumer Advocate
>--
>"Raoul, Raoul, Raoul and the Kings of Spain >Making it plain, making it sane >To turn this loss into a gain"
>------Raoul and the Kings of Spain -- 1995 -- Tears For Fears
>> About threats... >DO NOT let her toy and straighen herself out,
Right on, Panther! No blurring of lines, no excusing abuse.
wins off group supports
>privately or apologise,
Yes, I know. Nice in Email, but nasty on the NG. Have to save face with the status quo here.
Oh, I bet she'll apologize in Email to her friends, so they can feel sorry for her.
or play post her stuff expose it because abuse
>thrives on silence,
That's why I reposted at AST, then here. Her friends jumped in to support, making like I was the abuser. Didn't wash (thanks Rauni for the training ;). I'm not that insecure to have to have their approval. They showed their butts when they ran off to AOL to complain. No ISP would touch it, when it was done after a confrontation about possible online harassment.
and keeping yhe 'peace' SO do it,post it now.
It's been posted you'll have to read all the way down to the end of the post which started this thread, sorry. It's in the last paragraph of her post. But it's there in black in white, no distorting, no snipping.
Can you believe she's a "practicing* "psychotherapist" at that??
There
>should be no place to hide and nothing kept private when threats are >made.
Amen. I report all abuse publicly just in case they try something in RL. Confer all suspicions with friends, and document everything to make sure that nothing slips through the cracks.
Sad isn't it that we have to point the above out with this NG, eh? That's how sick it is.
TOR Consumer Advocate
--
"Raoul, Raoul, Raoul and the Kings of Spain Making it plain, making it sane To turn this loss into a gain"
------Raoul and the Kings of Spain -- 1995 -- Tears For Fears
T>One can be trained by Freud and Jung themselves, it doesn't
>mean that the person is any better at wisdom because of the >training.
K>That's for sure. As I've always said, Leslie Packer's
>judgment is extremely poor.
T>I still can't believe she'd waste everything to spout off
>like that, Curio. I've had times when I wanted to state some >vile things, but common sense prevails.
I know. I think one can write flames, even insults, and some of it is even humorous or entertaining. It ceases to be funny when people use violent imagery. I don't like what Fiona stated to UG Panther -- using suicide imagery under guise of myth. I don't like what Nancy Alvarado stated to you, (FOAD) I don't like that Leslie Packer tells both of us to blow our brains out or John Price's reference to my death over the years.
For the regulars on this sci group, I know I'm going to have to spell this out for you. It's unacceptable because it indicates very poor judgment, a serious lack of self-control, indicates severe character defects, and it's incredibly abusive -- even from a lay person. For a self-proclaimed psychotherapist and "child advocate," it raises so many red flags for me personally (and I thought my hackles were raised enough) that I really can't ignore it. Some people who have past SI can be triggered by words such as this.
T>Harassment and death threats, professionally ethical to you,
>Silke?
K>She probably thinks she's still in a Jackie Collins novel.
>LOL! It's all a black comedy here isn't it? Where friends of >friends protect others because they have religious and other >ties. A clique that one has to protect another to get in.
Yes, Silke has played her own games over the years and lied to me via e-mail to try to get me to cancel one of my own posts under false pretenses, but I tend to reward good behavior, no matter how slight. I'll leave it at that unless there's reason to expand on these comments.
>And why some folks (like Sara) wonder why they just > don't fit in with anyone here.
I'm just skimming some of these posts. I read her commentary and I consider it to be a bizarre take on events.
K>Of course it's not acceptable, but some of these people
>are so sociopathic that it does no good to appeal >to their "higher" nature.
T>Yes, and I can see that's very evident. How can *anyone*
>justify "blow your brains out?" Only one with a pathological >need to destroy another.
If you are shocked at this it's probably because you are a genuinely good person and want to think the best of people. I do that on occasion but not with people who indicate early on that they have sociopathic tendencies. I got her number years ago. It has nothing to do with exchanging dialogue with a person who holds a legitimate difference of opinion, it has to do with my awareness of conscious deception. She has made it more than obvious over the years, as have many here. It could also be due to my work background and personal life experience, most of which I do not disclose.
I don't care too much to write posts for this newsgroup alone because I consider it to be a cesspool and a closed system. There's nothing to be gained by just writing here -- for me.
K>I would prefer to appeal to their licensing boards.
>It all depends on what happens.
Yes, since she said it to both of us, we are each free to handle it as we see fit.
KJ
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
>You are unbelievably *stupid*!! she told you what you could do with >yourself!!! Considering what a nasty self centered piece of work you >are, she let you off easy!!
And you're psychologically ill, Rauni. Do get some psychological help. First you lied about your lawsuit threats to NAMI, and now trying to condone behaviour *no* psychological body would judge as appropriate behaviour of a professional.
>Yeah and just look at all the friends you have made.....
Plenty, and that just makes you even more sad, Rauni. The only friends you made are in your image.
TOR Consumer Advocate
--
"Raoul, Raoul, Raoul and the Kings of Spain Making it plain, making it sane To turn this loss into a gain"
------Raoul and the Kings of Spain -- 1995 -- Tears For Fears
Tor, the fact is that your original post in this thread was inappropriate. It was intended to be cruel and personal. That is wrong, and you can't excuse it.
You attack Leslie and others for not being professional at all times. You damn yourself with your own behavior, because a so-called "consumer advocate" would never attack others in such a fashion.
>From: "Dan Rogers" <dlrog...@frontiernet.net> >Date: Sat, 19 Jun 1999 08:53:06 -0500 >Message-ID: <7kg7ei$up...@node17.cwnet.frontiernet.net> >Tor, the fact is that your original post in this thread was inappropriate. >It was intended to be cruel and personal. That is wrong, and >you can't excuse it.
>You attack Leslie and others for not being professional at all >times. You damn yourself with your own behavior, because a >so-called "consumer advocate" would never attack others in >such a fashion.
>You owe Leslie and a lot of others an apology.
Dan, you make yourself even more despicable by trying to judge, when you're a hypocritical, unethical, abuse excuser, who's been holding SPP hostage with your immature antics with "Brad." You should be ashamed of yourself for even defending such a horrid remark.
As a professional you should know about "conflict resolutions." In fact all you've been doing for YEARS is trying to justify abusing folks. You're the poster child of hypocrisy, a whiney, runny nosed kid who backchannels support in trying to bring down anyone who you disagree.
You have no excuse to sit and judge anyone when your behaviour helped cause SPP to be a cesspool *long* before I arrived.
TOR Consumer Advocate
--
"Raoul, Raoul, Raoul and the Kings of Spain Making it plain, making it sane To turn this loss into a gain"
------Raoul and the Kings of Spain -- 1995 -- Tears For Fears
Tor, you were wrong. You attacked someone for no reason and with no hint of empathy, sympathy, or caring.
Besides, I have not "attacked people" or held any newsgroup hostage. I have attacked one and only one person on this newsgroup. Period. And I consistently tried to move those discussions to other newsgroups.
You were wrong. And you owe Leslie an apology.
You are being a "Tor advocate," not a "consumer advocate." Anybody who is really concerned with issues of mental health "consumers" would never have responded to Leslie the way you did.
>>Tor, the fact is that your original post in this thread was inappropriate. >>It was intended to be cruel and personal. That is wrong, and >>you can't excuse it.
>>You attack Leslie and others for not being professional at all >>times. You damn yourself with your own behavior, because a >>so-called "consumer advocate" would never attack others in >>such a fashion.
>>You owe Leslie and a lot of others an apology.
>Dan, you make yourself even more despicable by trying to judge, when you're a >hypocritical, unethical, abuse excuser, who's been holding SPP hostage with >your immature antics with "Brad." You should be ashamed of yourself for even >defending such a horrid remark.
>As a professional you should know about "conflict resolutions." In fact all >you've been doing for YEARS is trying to justify abusing folks. You're the >poster child of hypocrisy, a whiney, runny nosed kid who backchannels support >in trying to bring down anyone who you disagree.
>You have no excuse to sit and judge anyone when your behaviour helped cause SPP >to be a cesspool *long* before I arrived.
>From: "Dan Rogers" <dlrog...@frontiernet.net> >Date: Sun, 20 Jun 1999 14:33:09 -0500 >Message-ID: <7kk6pb$182...@node17.cwnet.frontiernet.net> >Tor, you were wrong. You attacked someone for no reason >and with no hint of empathy, sympathy, or caring.
>Besides, I have not "attacked people" or held any >newsgroup hostage. I have attacked one and only one >person on this newsgroup. Period. And I consistently >tried to move those discussions to other newsgroups.
I have read the Pope article long before you introduced it here. And it has nothing to do with the fact that you were wrong. You intentionally tried to hurt somebody. Worse, while you claim to be concerned about "consumers" of mental health services, you attacked someone who was in fact a consumer, and you attacked them on that basis.
Whatever that other person might have done to you, you were wrong for your behavior. Period.
You owe her and the group an apology.
EREBUS1845 <erebus1...@aol.comTFF-FAN> wrote in message
> >From: "Dan Rogers" <dlrog...@frontiernet.net> > >Tor, you were wrong. You attacked someone for no reason > >and with no hint of empathy, sympathy, or caring.
> >Besides, I have not "attacked people" or held any > >newsgroup hostage. I have attacked one and only one > >person on this newsgroup. Period. And I consistently > >tried to move those discussions to other newsgroups.
Tor, please post an example of something negative, hostile, or similar vein, that I have posted except regarding bradless. Or any example of my trying "to bring down anybody" with whom I disagree.
On the contrary, I learn a lot from people with whom I do not agree, and I enjoy the opinions of others. I am not attacking you now, am I? Look at the post below: where is the attack? I used as harsh a tone as I ever do (except with bradless, where I was one of the gentler voices).
You seem to have a very difficult time responding with anything other than invective, and I don't know why. The people you attack do not deserve the sort of insulting, overly personalized responses you give. I have certainly never done anything to you to warrant your nastiness.
I would much rather engage in meaningful dialogue, and I would very much appreciate it if you would do the same.
>>Tor, the fact is that your original post in this thread was inappropriate. >>It was intended to be cruel and personal. That is wrong, and >>you can't excuse it.
>>You attack Leslie and others for not being professional at all >>times. You damn yourself with your own behavior, because a >>so-called "consumer advocate" would never attack others in >>such a fashion.
>>You owe Leslie and a lot of others an apology.
>Dan, you make yourself even more despicable by trying to judge, when you're a >hypocritical, unethical, abuse excuser, who's been holding SPP hostage with >your immature antics with "Brad." You should be ashamed of yourself for even >defending such a horrid remark.
>As a professional you should know about "conflict resolutions." In fact all >you've been doing for YEARS is trying to justify abusing folks. You're the >poster child of hypocrisy, a whiney, runny nosed kid who backchannels support >in trying to bring down anyone who you disagree.
>You have no excuse to sit and judge anyone when your behaviour helped cause SPP >to be a cesspool *long* before I arrived.
>TOR >Consumer Advocate
>--
>"Raoul, Raoul, Raoul and the Kings of Spain >Making it plain, making it sane >To turn this loss into a gain"
>------Raoul and the Kings of Spain -- 1995 -- Tears For Fears
>From: "Dan L. Rogers" <dlrog...@frontiernet.net> >Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 16:15:02 -0500 >Message-ID: <7km9rr$144...@node17.cwnet.frontiernet.net> >I have read the Pope article long before you introduced it here. And it has >nothing to do with the fact that you were wrong. You intentionally tried >to hurt somebody. Worse, while you claim to be concerned about >"consumers" of mental health services, you attacked someone who was >in fact a consumer, and you attacked them on that basis.
>Whatever that other person might have done to you, you were wrong >for your behavior. Period.
>You owe her and the group an apology.
Coming from someone who claims to know psychology, and posts on a NG about the death of another, you make a mockery of yourself almost daily. Plus shows how hypocritical you can be, when you try to pass judgement.
Bet you'll never understand Pope's web page, since one has to have the compacity to be ethical to grasp it in the first place.
But thanks for showing folks where you stand.
TOR Consumer Advocate
--
"Raoul, Raoul, Raoul and the Kings of Spain Making it plain, making it sane To turn this loss into a gain"
------Raoul and the Kings of Spain -- 1995 -- Tears For Fears
