Make you a deal: No one speaks of me personally or harasses me and I'll leave this newsgroup now
Cognitee
Drewbob,
I'll let that pass. But it's needless, right.
Cognitee
Deal?
Cognitee
P.S. I was mistaken to present my closing case to this newsgroup. It
was not constructive for me to bring it here (oddly). I shall
henceforth, with your cooperation (including Norm's and Silke's) be
gone. Leslie Packer broke me down something terrible. She beat the
holy hell out of me with her meanness. I am emasculated; I may never
have sex again. I am wrought with deep anguish at how unbecoming we
have all been. But I am seeking the "final solution" so to speak.
Frankly, I will miss none of you much (except Ed). It might help if
people explicitly sign on to the deal I've maed and then encourage
others to remain reasonably fair and impersonal until I am nothing but a
memory. I shall check back for only a 2 weeks and if I feel I have been
reasonably let be, I shall be gone permanently. This is a pledge. But
conditions (very reasonable, given the purpose of the group) must be
met. After two weeks you can spend all day every day deriding me or
whatever.
Cognitee
Readers:
I shall give 24 hours (until 5 p.m. Wed) until I insist upon
reasonable compliance for this offer I have made to take effect. I must
assume that some do not have my proposal in their server yet. It is too
reasonable to be overlooked, I believe. Leslie has already made me
completely "dickless" (yes, folks I have NO DICK), I would think that if
she saw my "deal" she would be satisfied that I shall likely not love
another woman again and leave it at that. She is by far the meanest
person I have ever seen. I shall leave all my arguments here for
others, if I may just have your most reasonable indulgence. I think it
might pay to encourage the most superior and all-knowing, Leslie to
subscribe to my offer. It is with all the forebearance I can muster not
to reply to her NOW.
I will say that no one, APA or other, will make me say I am not a
developmental psychologist (though I am not a licensed psychologist or a
clinician). I would rather be kicked out of the APA than to submit to
the idea that only "licensed" (i.e. clinical people can call themselves
psychologists). There are: developmental psychologists, experimental
psychologists, and a number of others (virtually never IF EVER -- in
any state -- licensed, UNLESS DOING A CLINICAL PRACTICE.) People who
study behavior as a profession are psychologists. Many are much much
better scientists than clinicians, earning the "ology" more than
clinicians. The APA can have its rules, but they are not laws. I am a
developmental psychologist.
I will also say that I am recognized world-wide as a leading
ethologist, by editors of journals and leaders in the field. McGuire of
Ethology and Sociobiology and Eibl-Eibesfeldt will affirm this.
Leslie's unknowing insults toward me are hurtful and inappropriate. I
encourage all to write her and tell her what you think on this.
I hope not to have to speak again. THIS IS NOW LESLIE'S GROUP. SHE
HAS "FREED IT". HAIL LESLIE !! LEAVE THIS POOR SOLITARY DICKLESS
BASTARD ALONE.-- b jesness
Peter
In article <4tltbe$k...@stratus.skypoint.net>, Cognitee
<Cogn...@aol.com> writes
Brad, I give you my solemn promise that, other than to remind others of
this contract you have given us, I will not speak of you in this
newsgroup from now on. I will police this contract for you, and will
recruit others to help me in this. I ask you to allow at least 24 hours
for your message to reach those whose news servers are less than
efficient, or incapacitated <Demon being a perfect example>.
I am sorry to hear of your sexual emasculation and hope that you soon
recover. I wish for you God speed, and recovery from your deep anguish.
Please take care of yourself, and let us both keep to this bargain to
which I now sign my name.
Yours, very sincerely,
--
Peter Hood.
Andrew C Robertson
Cognitee wrote:
>
> Deal?
Your promises ain't worth a half-inch of the wire they travel over.
drewbob
Cognitee
I will check the newsgroup only for needless personal assualts on me
which impune my character or my ideas both unreasonably and falsely. I
will ignore everything else. I will leave it to others to defend my
points, just no personal references to me. OTHERWISE: Present whatever
biased stuff you want that seems plausibly in good faith (but nothing
falsely or clearly intentionally misrepresented) and I shall be gone. I
want to go. Do you wnat me gone? Can everyone support this deal?
Sandy Hardwick
wein...@mail2.sas.upenn.edu (Silke-Maria Weineck) wrote:
>Peter (Pe...@brentano.demon.co.uk) wrote:
>
>: Please take care of yourself, and let us both keep to this bargain to
>: which I now sign my name.
>
>
>S.
>
>: Yours, very sincerely,
>: --
>: Peter Hood.
I must leave lurking mode, please live up to your contract Mr. jessness
and please, please, do not return here under one of you many different
disguises. Thank You, Sincerely, Sandy
Paul Bernhardt
> People who
> study behavior as a profession are psychologists. Many are much much
> better scientists than clinicians, earning the "ology" more than
> clinicians. The APA can have its rules, but they are not laws. I am a
> developmental psychologist.
> I will also say that I am recognized world-wide as a leading
> ethologist, by editors of journals and leaders in the field. McGuire of
> Ethology and Sociobiology and Eibl-Eibesfeldt will affirm this.
Brad, we can't leave you alone if you insist on leaving lies lying about.
1) Many professional people who are not psychologists study behavior:
economists, speech therapists, physicians, businesspersons, marketers,
sports physiologists, coaches, etc. etc.
2) You want to claim world wide recognition as a leading ethologist based
on having a single letter published in a single journal in the mid 1980s
and two articles in the Eric Database...? Wow! From that standard of
measure I *could* claim that I am recognized world wide as a forefront
(not just leading) psychologist because I have a published article (you
don't), several papers in development and review (you don't), a reviewer
for a journal (you aren't), and a several paragraph mention and quotations
in the current (July) issue of the APA Monitor....
(http://www.apa.org:80/monitor/ you knew about that.... silly bear...)
but it would be untrue (the facts above are true, but the claim of world
wide etc wouldn't be true). I am just a struggling graduate student with
an embryonic career and a prayer that I'll get a job when I get my Ph.D.
Cool.... got to toot my own horn.
+=============================================================+
Paul C. Bernhardt, M.S. in Psychology, University of Utah
PhD graduate student in Educational Psychology
+=============================================================+
M.D.M
If you can do it, I can. However, based on the EVIDENCE (your postings)
I am not sure you have a whole lot of control over your behavior.
Mark
Cognitee
Deal? -- I shall check again tomorrow. If I give up on your
cooperation, I shall come back.
Ed Anderson
Cognitee <Cogn...@aol.com> wrote:
>Readers:
>...Leslie has already made me
>she saw my "deal" she would be satisfied that I shall likely not love
>....LEAVE THIS POOR SOLITARY DICKLESS
>BASTARD ALONE.-- b jesness
Oh, Christ <lol> ...
ed
Paul Bernhardt
> Deal? -- I shall check again tomorrow. If I give up on your
> cooperation, I shall come back.
Notice that this was stated in such a way whereby only he can determine if
he will return or not. If he gives up on our cooporation.... Brad,
As you have been shown before, usenet is inherently unstable. Messages can
take anywhere from 1 hour to a week or more to distribute throughout the
system. You may well get a message refering to you that you don't like as
much as a week from now (whenever you get this message). 24 hour is a
uselessly small amount of time for you to take note of others posting
habits. Give it a week and you will really be able to test your need
against the facts of other's behaviors.
Ember Beck
On 2 Aug 1996, Cognitee wrote:
> Deal? -- I shall check again tomorrow. If I give up on your
> cooperation, I shall come back.
>
Dear Brad,
I saw your deal after I posted something referring to you. I did not
know about this and would have respected your wishes had I known about
them. After all, I've been away fromhere for a while.
Please accept my apologies and hopes that you find contentment awaiting you.
Ember
Lorne D Gilsig
Does calling you a under-educated blow hard count?
--
Lorne D Gilsig
the reason of kings
Cognitee
Dear Lorne:
Judge an argument by the infornmation, data (or illustrated LACK
thereof), and reasoning IF YOU CAN. -- b jesness, M.A., developmental
psychologist, counseling instructor (I have substantial work towards a
second degree, one in counseling).
Andrew C Robertson
Cognitee wrote:
>
> I was mistaken to present my closing case to this newsgroup.
You were mistaken in presenting anything to this newsgroup.
> It was not constructive for me to bring it here (oddly).
Why is that odd? You never bring anything constructive here.
> I shall henceforth, with your cooperation (including Norm's and
> Silke's) be gone.
You could be gone without our "cooperation".
> Leslie Packer broke me down something terrible. She beat the
> holy hell out of me with her meanness.
That's nice.
> I am emasculated; I may never have sex again.
What do you mean "again"?
> Frankly, I will miss none of you much (except Ed).
Nobody's going to miss you either.
> It might help if people explicitly sign on to the deal I've maed
In other words, Brad has made an ultimatum, and he will not "be gone"
unless we accede. This is extortion. I for one will not be extorted by
the likes of this spamming idiot. Sure, Brad's a jerk, but any true
usenet veteran has dealt with far worse.
> I shall check back for only a 2 weeks and if I feel I have been
> reasonably let be, I shall be gone permanently.
In other words, if we don't do as Brad says, he'll try to be disruptive
by posting more of the same BradCrap ad infinitum, no doubt. Who's the
"thug" now, eh?
> This is a pledge.
How many times have you said you're leaving? A dozen? Two dozen?
> But conditions (very reasonable, given the purpose of the group) must
> be met.
OOOOOH...I'm SCARED...we've got to meet these CONDITIONS laid down by
BIG BAD BRAD...I'm shaking like a leaf...
drewbob
Lorne D Gilsig
Let me spare the group another one of your lies brad, you are no
more willing to leave now than you have ever been in the past.
You are now, as you have tried in the past, attempting control the
dialog in this group.
As for being emasculated, good, the thought of you bringing like
minds into the world makes my skin crawl. I would think with as
much time as you spend in front of a CRT typing under your name
and the names of your alters you would be sterile by now any way.
an690705
Dear Lorne,
He's got "IT" back <wink, wink>, if you know what I mean.
Lorne D Gilsig
Dear Brad,
First, everyone knows its you so drop the third person garbage.
Second, I know you have "it". Post after post I have watched
you step on "it", trip over "it", and have finer minds tie "it"
in knots for you.
"It" has taken quite a beating here, perhaps you might think of
hanging out elsewhere before "it" takes anymore abuse.
Leslie E. Packer, PhD
On Aug 16, 1996 02:15:51 in article <Re: Make you a deal: No one speaks of
me personally or harasses me and I'll leave this newsgroup now>, 'Lorne D
Lorne. Thanks for the best laugh of the evening!
Leslie
Cognitee
Oh, and Leslie:
<laughing> <laughing> <laughing> <laughing> <laughing>
<laughing> <laughing> <laughing> <laughing> <laughing>
<laughing> <laughing> <laughing> <laughing> <laughing>
<laughing> <laughing> <laughing> <laughing> <laughing>
<laughing> <laughing> <laughing> <laughing> <laughing>
<laughing> <laughing> <laughing> <laughing> <laughing>
<laughing> <laughing> <laughing> <laughing> <laughing>
<laughing> <laughing> <laughing> <laughing> <laughing>
<laughing> <laughing> <laughing> <laughing> <laughing>
<laughing> <laughing> <laughing> <laughing> <laughing>
<laughing> <laughing> <laughing> <laughing> <laughing>
<laughing> <laughing> <laughing> <laughing> <laughing>
<laughing> <laughing> <laughing> <laughing> <laughing>
<laughing> <laughing> <laughing> <laughing> <laughing>
<laughing> <laughing> <laughing> <laughing> <laughing>
<laughing> <laughing> <laughing> <laughing> <laughing>
<laughing> <laughing> <laughing> <laughing> <laughing>
<laughing> <laughing> <laughing> <laughing> <laughing>
<laughing> <laughing> <laughing> <laughing> <laughing>
<laughing> <laughing> <laughing> <laughing> <laughing>
<laughing> <laughing> <laughing> <laughing> <laughing>
<laughing> <laughing> <laughing> <laughing> <laughing>
<laughing> <laughing> <laughing> <laughing> <laughing>
<laughing> <laughing> <laughing> <laughing> <laughing>
<laughing> <laughing> <laughing> <laughing> <laughing>
<laughing> <laughing> <laughing> <laughing> <laughing>
<laughing> <laughing> <laughing> <laughing> <laughing>
<laughing> <laughing> <laughing> <laughing> <laughing>
<laughing> <laughing> <laughing> <laughing> <laughing>
<laughing> <laughing> <laughing> <laughing> <laughing>
<laughing> <laughing> <laughing> <laughing> <laughing>
<laughing> <laughing> <laughing> <laughing> <laughing>
<laughing> <laughing> <laughing> <laughing> <laughing>
<laughing> <laughing> <laughing> <laughing> <laughing>
<laughing> <laughing> <laughing> <laughing> <laughing>
<laughing> <laughing> <laughing> <laughing> <laughing>
<laughing> <laughing> <laughing> <laughing> <laughing>
<laughing> <laughing> <laughing> <laughing> <laughing>
<laughing> <laughing> <laughing> <laughing> <laughing>
<laughing> <laughing> <laughing> <laughing> <laughing>
<laughing> <laughing> <laughing> <laughing> <laughing>
<laughing> <laughing> <laughing> <laughing> <laughing>
<laughing> <laughing> <laughing> <laughing> <laughing>
<laughing> <laughing> <laughing> <laughing> <laughing>
<laughing> <laughing> <laughing> <laughing> <laughing>
<laughing> <laughing> <laughing> <laughing> <laughing>
<laughing> <laughing> <laughing> <laughing> <laughing>
<laughing> <laughing> <laughing> <laughing> <laughing>
<laughing> <laughing> <laughing> <laughing> <laughing>
<laughing> <laughing> <laughing> <laughing> <laughing>
<laughing> <laughing> <laughing> <laughing> <laughing>
<laughing> <laughing> <laughing> <laughing> <laughing>
<laughing> <laughing> <laughing> <laughing> <laughing>
<laughing> <laughing> <laughing> <laughing> <laughing>
<laughing> <laughing> <laughing> <laughing> <laughing>
<laughing> <laughing> <laughing> <laughing> <laughing>
<laughing> <laughing> <laughing> <laughing> <laughing>
<laughing> <laughing> <laughing> <laughing> <laughing>
<laughing> <laughing> <laughing> <laughing> <laughing>
<laughing> <laughing> <laughing> <laughing> <laughing>
<laughing> <laughing> <laughing> <laughing> <laughing>
<laughing> <laughing> <laughing> <laughing> <laughing>
<laughing> <laughing> <laughing> <laughing> <laughing>
<laughing> <laughing> <laughing> <laughing> <laughing>
<laughing> <laughing> <laughing> <laughing> <laughing>
Cognitee
P.P.S. Dear Leslie,
Since you have decided you would be the judge of what's appropriate and
what's not *AND* given that you send in each my posts you see as
"inappropriate" to AOL (with some accompanying story), trying again and
again to get me kicked off: I though I should ask: When is <laughing>
appropriate and when is it abusive or offensive? Shall you try to report
me for abuse when I laugh back at you? Please lay out the rules here. I
understand that you will try to punish me each time I disobey your rules.
I have had to explain much to administrators already given the stories you
tell and given you send in select parts of one half of our interactions.
Did you tell them that you are the one that forbids any contact by
e-mail and you are the one that airs all your spite against me publically?
Do people know this?? Do they know that you will always choose to
publicly insult me and friends and that you YOURSELF are horribly abusive
?? Do people realize that you want to deny free speech ABOUT ISSUES you
find offensive as much as anything ??
Cognitee
Sorry, Leslie:
Cognitee
<laughing>
Leslie E. Packer, PhD
On Aug 16, 1996 17:12:23 in article <Re: Make you a deal: No one speaks of
me personally or harasses me and I'll leave this newsgroup now>,
>Did you tell them that you are the one that forbids any contact by
> and you are the one that airs all your spite against me publically?
>Do people know this??
> Do they know that you will always choose to
>publicly insult me and friends and that you YOURSELF are horribly abusive
>??
you can, but most of the rest of the world understands the epistemological
distinction). What most people _know_ is that you see yourself as a victim
instead of understanding that you are getting back what you give out.
What most people understand is that I treated your issue respectfully and
tried to discuss it with you until you _personalized_ the discussion when I
didn't agree with you.
What most people understand is that my filing a complaint that I think is
justifed is not sneaky or underhanded, but your pretending to be different
people certainly _is_.
>Do people realize that you want to deny free speech ABOUT ISSUES you
>find offensive as much as anything ??
It is unfortunate that you can't discriminate between style and content,
Mr. Jesness. It might save you a lot of grief in your life.
Saying that the APA needs to address certain issues is legitimate.
Asserting that they kill children is objectionable and possibly actionable.
You were repeatedly advised -- by me, and by others in this ng -- that no
one objected to you trying to discuss issues you feel are important, but
that many (most) of us found your style and personal accusations offensive
and would not respond to you because you get hysterical and rant and rave
at people who either disagree with you or point out the flaws in your
presentation/case or reasoning.
When people who do not even know each other are _all_ telling you that a
post of yours comes across as an attempt to intimidate, maybe it's time for
you to take a long hard look at your style if it was not your intention to
attempt to intimidate.
L.
Dear Ms. Packer,
It is my view that you do deflect conversation away from serious
topics. Possibly you do this partly because you presume the topics are
not important. But a number of serious thinkers including an APA
president has had an outlook on problems similar to brad's. What you do
is demean the question and issues and then side-track the conversation
into an area where dialog will be unpleasant. Then you retain some
appearance of civility while insulting and continuing to demean. just
some observations.
In article <4v3ap0$i...@news1.t1.usa.pipeline.com>,
Peter
In article <4v2o7n$n...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, Cognitee
<cogn...@aol.com> writes
>P.P.S. Dear Leslie,
> Since you have decided you would be the judge of what's appropriate and
>what's not *AND* given that you send in each my posts you see as
>"inappropriate" to AOL (with some accompanying story), trying again and
>again to get me kicked off:
I know and others know what the accompanying story is; we have all lived
through it for some months now. W.H. Auden wrote;
I and the public know
What all schoolchildren learn,
Those to whom evil is done
Do evil in return.
<which he pinched from an old english rhyme, to be found in the latest edn.
of the Oxford Dictionary of Nursery Rhymes.>
It is a question of reaping that which you have sown.
>I though I should ask: When is <laughing>
>appropriate and when is it abusive or offensive?
"...but in the night a little boy is dreaming mysteries
and looking after laughter with his sister climbing trees..."
<Harper>
You have a problem with laughter, Brad? Why?
>Shall you try to report
>me for abuse when I laugh back at you? Please lay out the rules here.
Same rules as apply anywhere elsewhere; 1) so-called netiquette, 2) rules
relating to discussions between people supposedly belonging to therapeutic
and psychology disciplines.
>I
>understand that you will try to punish me each time I disobey your rules.
Not Leslie's rules, Brad. Think again. Think about how people respond to
behaviours such as yours, behaviours that you have been emitting to the net
since <I believe> over a year. Did you expect people to thank you for the
abuse that you have heaped on their heads? Punishment? So, you feel pain,
you feel punished? Given the universal negative response to your postings,
what does this tell you? What do you infer? Do you infer that everyone
posting negative responses to you and your plans is of pathological bent?
Is only Bradley Jesness correct?
You remind me of a song written by the beatles - 'he's a real nowhere man,
sitting in his nowhere land, making all his nowhere plans for nobody' - you
epitomise these lines for me. This is because of your apparently magical
thinking. Brad, just because you believe something, just because you can
post it to news, and just because you have an MA does not make what you say
absolutely true. Ring fencing your arguments with assertions about the APA,
professionals, the possessors of Ph.D's, dislike of other disciplines in
favour of your <avowed> own does you no favours. It puts you on the
shoreline, along with the late english Canute.
>I have had to explain much to administrators already given the stories you
>tell and given you send in select parts of one half of our interactions.
Do you have no sense of self? How do you think you are perceived in this
ng? Do you consider the negative feedback that predominates in discussions
about you to be unrelated to the truth? Does everyone in this ng have a
problem, with the exception of you? Do your constant promises to go away,
your half admissions of guilt, and your inablity to accept the arguments
put forward by such as Leslie not tell you something? Does your subsequent
need to explain yourself to administrators not ice the cake?
> Did you tell them that you are the one that forbids any contact by
>e-mail and you are the one that airs all your spite against me publically?
No spite; your arguments were demolished by Leslie, you took to abuse,
Leslie took to laughing it off, you focussed on Leslie's typographical
equivalents to non verbal behaviour. "Laughing with pride" you say in
another thread; I find myself wondering what this signifies, I wonder if
there's some kind of a projection here... ...what _is_ going on in your
mind, Brad?
> Do people know this??
Yes, they know exactly what is going on; Leslie has been up front about
the whole thing. Leslie is not the only one to tell you not to e-mail
her, because of the abuse you hurl privately. If your public persona is an
indicator of your likely performance in private, and if those insults
others have received by e-mail is another indicator, then I fully
understand Leslie's warning WRT e-mail correspondence <as well as those
made by others>, and my personal experiences tell me a forteriori that
e-mail correspondence with someone whose primary behaviours in public and
private are so obnoxious is inadvisable. <I still have your diagnoses in my
mailer, Brad, and please note the use of plural.>
>Do they know that you will always choose to
>publicly insult me and friends and that you YOURSELF are horribly abusive
>?? Do people realize that you want to deny free speech ABOUT ISSUES you
>find offensive as much as anything ??
1) Leslie's not abused you, on the contrary; 2) 'will always'?, is this
more mind reading Brad, or are you forecasting?; 3) 'free speech'? You
presumably refer to a 'right'?
Well, my dear litigiously <APA> minded Bradley Jesness, I will remind you
of this; rights imply duties, each being the opposite side of the coin to
the other. If you have a right to free speech in any electronic forum to
which you post, you also have a duty not to abuse this right and that
includes not abusing others, not abusing anon.penet.fi, and not abusing
your access to numbers of aliases provided by your suppliers, not using
aliases from within netscape/your web browser <which I gather is easily
accomplished>, and not making a mockery of the rights of others to place
you in their kill-files, and thus their right to exclude you from their
newsbase. Do you understand this?
You have made sexist comments about Leslie Packer <and others - shall I
repost some items?>; you have posted abusive comments about the therapeutic
disciplines in general, in a forum supposedly devoted to said disciplines;
you have abused the anon.penet.fi system; you have abused your own
suppliers; you have singled out and abused anyone who dares to disagree
with your ill-thought out conjectures; additionally you cross-post from
within the confines of the preceding points; you repeatedly repost the same
old stuff that we've read before, from within the confines of the above...
...and therefore you cannot be logically described as someone fit to
exercise the right of free speech.
Minute by minute, hour by hour, day after day, week after week, month after
month you draw in newcomers to the newsgroups to which you post. You
attempt to create confusion by eliciting new anon.penet.fi numbers - easily
done, since you have been able to abuse the aol facility for limitless
aliases, and thus I assume you have a massive stock of anon numbers - you
obfuscate, you bluster, you cajole, you confute, you threaten, you refuse
to accept any scientific analysis of your proposals, you reject the
strictures laid down by IRB's/ethical committees WRT your own proposals,
you refuse to accept the limitations of parapros and the need to train
clinicians and therapists with a grounding in psychobiology and diagnostic
categories <to shorten the list>, and you avoid answering specific
questions. For example;
Your supposed track record as an advocate.
Details of your 'organisation', including finances.
Your status as a 'Professor' <in my mailer, Bradley>.
<Spectators please insert others here>
Bradley, how can you expect to be credible at all? Are you a happy man,
Bradley? What drives you into behaving so offensively, with complete
disregard for the truth, and with complete disregard for anything
resembling the 'norms' governing human social interactions? Does the list
of names below reflect normal behaviour":
"Ask about B.R.A.D." <br...@future.net>
'Cognitee <see...@of.post>'
"From B.R.A.D." <br...@future.net>
"One of B.R.A.D." <br...@future.net>
"PleaseHelpDefendDan,HeWillNeedHelp" <br...@future.net>
"SameThingasAbove,BetterCopy" <br...@future.net>
Addendum <br...@future.net>
AllCanSee <br...@future.net>
Allen Ivey <br...@future.net>
an571479 <an57...@anon.penet.fi>
anon <an...@xxx.xxx> [X-NNTP-Posting-Host: cafe9.cafeinternet.co.uk]
an57...@anon.penet.fi (Whoever)
an589948 <an58...@anon.penet.fi>
an60...@anon.penet.fi
an692398 <an69...@anon.penet.fi>
an69...@anon.penet.fi
an690705 <an69...@anon.penet.fi>
anon <an57...@anon.penet.fi>
AnotherCaseOfRawABUSE <Cogn...@aol.com>
B Jesness <spa...@imt.net>
B J <br...@future.net>
B Jesness <br...@future.net>
B Jesness <spa...@servco.com>
b1r2...@aol.com.
BRADvocate <je...@future.net>
brre...@aol.com (BrReceiv)
BULLYING <an57...@anon.penet.fi>
ClaimingWhatYouDon'tKnowIsALie <br...@future.net>
Cognito2 <Cogn...@aol.com>
CompanyConsideringThisSolution <br...@future.net>
cris...@aol.com (Crisis gal)
D Assmunn <D_As...@aol.com>
e1c...@aol.com (E1CD2P3)
Grohol'sDirectThreat <Cogn...@aol.com>
GrowWhole <je...@future.net>
HighestLevelOfAbuseYET <Cogn...@aol.com>
iamfr...@aol.com [Tentative]
IKnowUDont, iknow...@aol.com
inco...@aol.com (Incognee)
Jess <je...@future.net>
ksni...@aol.com
Livimone <livi...@aol.com>
MightIAdd <br...@future.net>
MovedMessagefromAnother <br...@future.net>
n...@way.jose (L.)
NoteToKillfileUsers <you.?@know.it> <N.B>
oneat...@aol.com (OneAtLarge)
opant...@aol.com (Opantidise)
oppa...@aol.com (Oppantidi)
Please let me know what Grohol says <spa...@imt.net>
PostAboveHasBeenAlterredbyAnother <br...@future.net>
psyc...@aol.com (Psycheth)
psyc...@imt.net
QuotingIvey <br...@future.net>
SCREWU <D@Assmunn.?.com>
TheOriginalPost <br...@future.net>
ThreadBelowForThoseWhoCannotBeAppropriate <br...@future.net>
TooHottoHandle? <je...@future.net>
Unknwname <unkn...@aol.com>
VoiceofAuthority <br...@future.net>
VoteNOtoGrohol <Cogn...@aol.com>
W/RtoInfoWanted <br...@future.net>
YehRightDave <br...@future.net>
You'dLiketoKnow <n...@way.jose> n...@way.jose (L.)
Zarathustra
That's 66, and I'm willing to bet that there are more in my archives. 66
ways to slip past a kill-file, which means there will be more, and more,
and more, and more... ...ad infinitum, ad nauseam.
From now on my postings will be very intermittent, and probably not relate
to anything therapeutic; there will be little time for me to do other than
concentrate on you and your 'names'/'aliases', as my home is to be gutted
and rebuilt. I will be here for the purposes of making sure that no-one
misunderstands the reality of things in here - namely that the problem in
s.p.p is you, not Dr. Leslie Packer, nor anyone else with whom you take
exception.
Good bye brad.
--
Peter
<Still laughing in my sleep, and ROFLOL when awake>
Peter
In article <4v2h1a$g...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, Cognitee
<cogn...@aol.com> writes
>Sorry, Leslie:
> <laughing>
><laughing>
Well, Brad, here I am sitting waiting for the carpet damage assessors to
arrive. I saw this, and pressed the scroll button. It's quite pretty.
I got to thinking that this post of yours is the most creative yet. It
exemplifies your content and repetitiveness.
I also got to thinking that it's a bit like a cartoon... ...hmmm. Brad,
are you a 'Toon? Or are you merely an exercise in self parody?
--
Peter
<Did you wash 'it'?>
Paul Bernhardt
In article <4v2o7n$n...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, cogn...@aol.com (Cognitee)
wrote:
>I though I should ask: When is <laughing>
> me for abuse when I laugh back at you? Please lay out the rules here. I
> understand that you will try to punish me each time I disobey your rules.
> tell and given you send in select parts of one half of our interactions.
Brad, without a doubt you have had to explain yourself a lot to a lot of
net administrators lately. You are gaining quite a reputation among them.
A reputation you may not find you enjoy. Speaking of laughing, a net
administrator laughed about you just the other day, then he sighed... he
hates to kick people off his service.
What I want to know, from you who says repeatedly that your messages
always have content relevent to psychology issues, is where exactly I
should look in your three posts to this thread which are composed soley
of: <laughing> ? One is 281 lines, one <laughing> each line. One is 66
lines of 5 <laughing>s each. The last is one line, one <laughing>. Where's
the substance, Brad?
+=============================================================+
Paul C. Bernhardt, M.S. in Social Psychology (non-clinical)
+=============================================================+
Leslie E. Packer, PhD
On Aug 17, 1996 14:23:48 in article <Re: Make you a deal: No one speaks of
me personally or harasses me and I'll leave this newsgroup now>,
>Dear Ms. Packer,
>It is my view that you do deflect conversation away from serious
>topics. Possibly you do this partly because you presume the topics are
>not important. But a number of serious thinkers including an APA
>president has had an outlook on problems similar to brad's. What you do
>is demean the question and issues and then side-track the conversation
>into an area where dialog will be unpleasant.
issues is... where???
Show us all when I have ever demeaned an issue or serious question. Exact
posts.
Just repeating your "views" don't make them accurate.
SISY...@pacbell.net
Brad,
C'mon. If this post of Peter's doesn't give you INSIGHT about yourself,
what will?
Norm
SISY...@pacbell.net
Brad,
I'll be more direct.
You behave yourself on the other list we belong to,
why can't you here. Is there something specific about
s.p.p.?
And don't tell me it's Leslie. You have been this way
before Leslie..hmmm..we can call this B.L...before Leslie.
hmmm. we could make that B.L.T. meaning Before Leslie's Thingee
And Brad, you said it got to your thingee.
Best,
Norm
Cognitee
Dear Ms. Packer:
It is not in accord with objective and observable fact that people
responded fairly to the substance of my most reasonable arguments. The
manifesto of my group (appearing abbreviated below) set off a hostile
response for months. Also YOU have not history of responding reasonablyu
(thus civilly) to ANY of my posts.
Of course now you are the champion of hostility, aggression, and
suppression around here hands down (as judged by any that can see
objectively and cite easily observable facts, as you --a major bonehead
--would say). Well, you've come a long way, but just to put yourself in
ill-repute.
Ask us about Client Advocates, the organization: It is a client and
science advocacy group,dedicated to furthering science standards and
practices in the therapy field. We insist on fair and proper
representation of treatments and on providing information about costly or
limited treatment options available to clients "up front". We believe
options and evidence of their efficacies should be provided to clients
before they enter a course of counseling or therapy. Only this would
provide reasonable information before the expense of and commitment to a
course of treatment. Also, techniques or methods used that have NOT been
clearly shown to have efficacy AND validated for a particular,
reliably-identifiable problem type (i.e. showing blind inter-rater
reliability) are NOT be referred to as "therapy." Correspondingly, when
what is done is COUNSELING, the cooperative nature of this should be
made clear and it should be properly represented, leading to appropriate
expectations. Counseling is considered a most noble cooperative
endeavor, requiring the most consideration and intelligence.
Cognitee
Dear Paul,
With <laughing> , I was trying to make a point with Leslie. True, her
immature childish aggressive mean nasty schoolgirl chatty (gossipy) ways
do not deserve a response or should not be in a newsgroup, but she
side-tracks and interrupts serious discussion. Then she behaves like a
wicked person and then accuses others of abuse. AND she will make no
communication to me (or accept any) except publically through this
international group. Well, few are as shameless as this
Leslie E. Packer, PhD
On Aug 18, 1996 12:35:04 in article <Re: Make you a deal: No one speaks of
me personally or harasses me and I'll leave this newsgroup now>,
And is that other list where he behaves moderated?
Lorne D Gilsig
Hi brad,
You simpering twit. Sorry, but we know about this AKA too.
--
Lorne D. Gilsig
The Reason of Kings
anon571479
Dear All,
Technically the mailing list being discussed is moderated. But I know
for a fact of no censorship whatsoever. I know no post of Brad's has ever
been censored there. No one (I'm told also) has ever been kicked off the
list. Joe Plaud is the list-owner and can verify all this. You have no
model for any moderation involving censorship (whatsoever) in this mailing
list.
You and other Hitler-types want censorship. You want the world as you
like it and will soon have nothing.
In article <3219D5...@pacbell.net>, SISY...@pacbell.net wrote:
> Leslie E. Packer, PhD wrote:
> >
> >
> > And is that other list where he behaves moderated?
>
> Hi Leslie,
> Yes.
>
> Norm
SISY...@pacbell.net
Paul Bernhardt
In article <an571479-200...@198.22.19.222>,
an57...@anon.penet.fi (anon571479) wrote:
> Dear All,
> Technically the mailing list being discussed is moderated. But I know
> for a fact of no censorship whatsoever. I know no post of Brad's has ever
> been censored there. No one (I'm told also) has ever been kicked off the
> list. Joe Plaud is the list-owner and can verify all this. You have no
> model for any moderation involving censorship (whatsoever) in this mailing
> list.
> You and other Hitler-types want censorship. You want the world as you
> like it and will soon have nothing.
>
Hello Brad, we know you by your signs, symbols, and acts.
Simple logic on this one. There is no way anyone but Brad and the list
moderators could know if Brad's posts have ever been censored. Since there
is no reason for any of the moderators to post the above, and the many
other posts from that anon account, annonymously there is no doubt
whatsoever that this post is from Brad.
Leslie E. Packer, PhD
On Aug 20, 1996 08:11:16 in article <Re: Make you a deal: No one speaks of
has said.
Brad behaves himself appropriately in a moderated list. So when he has no
choice but to behave/conform to netiquette or be thrown out, he conforms.
That should tell everyone something.
When's the next time we can vote for moderation?
--
Leslie E. Packer, PhD
Peter
In article <an571479-200...@198.22.19.222>, anon571479
<an57...@anon.penet.fi> writes
>Dear All,
> Technically the mailing list being discussed is moderated. But I know
>for a fact of no censorship whatsoever. I know no post of Brad's has ever
>been censored there. No one (I'm told also) has ever been kicked off the
>list. Joe Plaud is the list-owner and can verify all this. You have no
>model for any moderation involving censorship (whatsoever) in this mailing
>list.
>You and other Hitler-types want censorship. You want the world as you
>like it and will soon have nothing.
Let's see if I have this right; moderation is enforced by Hitler-types?
Perhaps you might like to ask Leslie and Norm of their opinions of
Hitler. You might even be surprised. Who knows?
>In article <3219D5...@pacbell.net>, SISY...@pacbell.net wrote:
>
>> Leslie E. Packer, PhD wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > And is that other list where he behaves moderated?
>>
>> Hi Leslie,
>> Yes.
>>
>> Norm
--
Peter