Fwd from SPM: Minnesota Laws on "Psychologist"
Cognitee
TO WIT: LESLIE Packer's ed. background and process for her licensure in
her own words: " My PhD in experimental psychology was from an APA
approved
program. I completed two years of post-doctoral supervised work, as
required to sit for the NYS licensing examination. "
Leslie E. Packer, PhD
To ALL:
Normally, I don't crosspost messages, but after all the brouhaha here, I
thought others might be interested in seeing this one particular post from
sci.psychology.misc.
----------------
On Aug 02, 1996 21:07:36 in <sci.psychology.misc>, 'TIM...@news.delphi.com
(TIM...@DELPHI.COM)' wrote:
Umm, Brad? Actually, in Minnesota "psychologist" is a legal term. To
quote the Board of Psychology's Rules of Conduct:
"Section 7200.0100 Definitions.
Subp. 9. Psychologist. "Psychologist" means licensee of the board.
Subp. 6. Licensee of the board. "Licensee of the board" or "licensee"
means a licensed psychologist."
And, to quote Minnesota statute 148.96:
148.96 Presentation to the Public.
No individual shall present or permit presentation of that individual to
the public by any title incorporating the word "psychological,"
"psychologist" or "psychology" other than those so licensed by Laws 1973,
chapter 685; except that:
(1) Any psychologically trained individual employed by educational
institutions recognized by a regional accrediting organization, federal,
state, county, or local governmental institutionsm agencies, research
facilities, or agencies providing services on a contracting basis may be
represented by the academic or research title designated by that
organization;
(2) Any psychologically trained individual from such recognized
institutions, as given in clause (1), may offer lecture services and
be exempt from the provisions of theis section; and
(3) Persons preparing for the profession of psychologist under qualified
supervision in recognized training institutions or facilities may be
designated by such titles as "psychological intern," "psychological
trainee," or others clearly indicating such training status.
So, Brad, if your recognized educational institution calls you a
"Developmental Psychologist" as part of your job title THEN you do indeed
have the right to call yourelf a "developmental psychologist." If your
institution does not formally recognize you with that title, then you DO
NOT have that right and you are breaking the law by misrepresenting
yourself. I believe that this is also a violation of the Ethical
Principles of the APA, which you are paradoxically apparently a member of
despite your venomous disdain for everyone who has achieved licensure as a
clinician.
As has been mentioned by others, I too have no problem with forwarding
copies of your public statements that you are a "psychologist" to the
Minnesota Board of Psychology and the APA Ethical Committee for further
investigation. This will no doubt require that these authorities contact
your employer to verify that you are designated a psychologist by them.
Sincerely,
Tim
-----------------------
I hope that this will now put an end to this discussion about who is
misunderstanding or mis-stating the law, OK, Brad?
Leslie
Cognitee
I am a developmental psychologist, for I lecture in developmental
psychology in the institutions outlined in the statue. WHERE IS MY
APOLOGY LESLIE? I taught developmenal psychology last year and first
taught it in 1988 (I believe)
I AM A "DEVELOPMENTAL PSYCHOLOGIST"
I AM A "DEVELOPMENTAL PSYCHOLOGIST"
I AM A "DEVELOPMENTAL PSYCHOLOGIST"
I AM A "DEVELOPMENTAL PSYCHOLOGIST"
I AM A "DEVELOPMENTAL PSYCHOLOGIST"
Cognitee
I have never presented myself as just a "psychologist" not in any way
HAVE I implied I am licensed OR that I offer such services.
WHERE'S MY APOLOGY LESLIE ???
I have never presented myself as just a "psychologist" not in any way
HAVE I implied I am licensed OR that I offer such services.
WHERE'S MY APOLOGY LESLIE ???
I have never presented myself as just a "psychologist" not in any way
HAVE I implied I am licensed OR that I offer such services.
WHERE'S MY APOLOGY LESLIE ???
I have never presented myself as just a "psychologist" not in any way
HAVE I implied I am licensed OR that I offer such services.
WHERE'S MY APOLOGY LESLIE ???
Cognitee
About Leslie:
SHE would like to be able to report me (but can't) BECAUSE she is
HIGH ON A CONCEITED HORSE. YET she OBVIOUSLY JUST "SLIPPED INTO" ANY
KIND OF "CLINICAL-TYPE" STATUS (AND MAYBE WAS GRANDFATHERED IN). I bet
Leslie could not even take the clinical exam or any clinical-type exam
nowadays with her training. She is trained in experimental psychology
!!!!! Couple years beyond that and supervision (like you have) would
get you nothing clinical, yet this is all you have. Maybe this is why
you are more ignorant than usual. YOU ARE ALSO MORE ARROGANT AND
CONCEITED all for you personal defenses I'd say.
Cognitee
P.P.S. Leslie,
Hey, ol' gal, what were you runnin' back then, as an experimental
psychologist, rats or pigeons? Are the brain-damaged you deal with now
similar ? Take care. Hope not to have to communicate with you again.
-- b jesness
Leslie E. Packer, PhD
On Aug 03, 1996 04:30:15 in article <Re: Fwd from SPM: Minnesota Laws on
As an advocate for neurologically impaired individuals, I must tell you
that this post is incredibly offensive. Your ignorance about professional
psychology, licensing procedures for psychologists, and APA ethical
standards is distressing enough, but your attacks on my professional work
are really attacks on the NYS Board of Psychology who licensed me and on
the APA.
As to the "substance" of your inquiry: my work was with a variety of
populations depending on the activity, including: "normal" preschool
children, neurologically impaired children, "normal" college students,
adult patients with various medical problems, and in one study, coturnix
coturnix japonica (Japanese quail). No rats. No pigeons. One year of my
post-doctoral supervised work was at NYU Medical Center/Bellevue Hospital
Center, in the Dept. of Rehabilitation Medicine (doing exactly the kind of
work I do now in private practice). That position was because of my
pre-doctoral work. I first started working with the physically disabled in
1965, as a volunteer during high school. I have served on the professional
advisory board for the Epilepsy Foundation in the past , and am currently
on the Board of Directors for the Tourette Syndrome Association (LI
Chapter). I am also the senior coordinator for the NYS-wide Task Force on
Educating Children with Tourette Syndrome.
If you weren't so incredibly ignorant about experimental psychology, you
wouldn't even post such ridiculous stuff.
But perhaps your posts point to the most important difference between
doctoral level psychologists and people like you or your "highly selected
paras:" you suspect that psychologists do things that are unethical or
without appropriate training and supervision.
We don't. You probably would because you think you know better than those
whose education you haven't been able to attain. It is not us the public
needs protection from, Brad. It is you. You seem to have an overestimate
of your competencies and qualifications. You certainly appear to be trying
to get a lot of mileage out of one masters degree in educational
psychology. Further, you do a lot of potential _harm_ to the people you
_claim_ to care about by putting totally bogus and inaccurate ideas into
their heads about professional psychologists. There are many people out
there who need help, and if your posts scare them off from seeking help,
well, _you_ try to live with that. One of the reasons I started the
advocacy work that I do is because of two suicides: teenagers who _didn't_
get the high-level care they needed and were "treated" by lower level
professionals. You claim to care about suicides and want paras involved.
Yeah, right.
Now, since _you_ claim that APA ethics requires those who hold themselves
out to be psychologists to provide their credentials, etc., and since
_you_ claim that you are holding yourself out as a "developmental
psychologist" and offering lecture services as same, I hereby request that
you provide the following information (what was it you said about having to
report possible ethical abuse if I didn't comply with your demands for
information... I think you said someone might have to report, right?):
1. The name of your current employer, so that we, as the public, can
verify your status and job title.
2. Any state certification or licenses that you hold relevant to
psychology.
3. Information on the organization you list as "Client Advocates" and
whether it is a not-for-profit organization, whether it is incorporated,
who the board of directors are, and a copy of the financial statement for
the organization.
4. Any positions or titles you hold in recognized organizations with
respect to developmental psychology.
Awaiting the information with genuine interest,
Leslie E. Packer, PhD
Leslie E. Packer, PhD
On Aug 03, 1996 03:35:01 in article <Re: Fwd from SPM: Minnesota Laws on
offer lecture services. Your title in your academic institution (and what
institution is that, btw?) gives you (or gave you, since I have no idea how
you are _now_ employed and what you _will be_ teaching in September) the
title of "Instructor," correct?
In your activities in this public newsgroup, you are not offering "lecture
services." You are trying to influence public opinion, public policy, and
professional activities. You list your organization as "Client Advocate."
And in _those_ roles, you have tried to cite your credentials.
No apology from me, Brad. I don't read the law the way you do and I don't
read the ethical guidelines the way you do.
Leslie E. Packer, PhD
Cognitee
Leslie,
I would not in a million years provide the name of my employer to
you. Nor is it required. OR: PROVE IT !! I have been a member of APA
Div. 7 , Developmental Psychology, for 10 years as well as an associate
member of the APA. I have no licenses: I was never suspected of
possible incompetence so my degree speaks for itself without such a lame
"proficiency test". Licenses are not comprehensivre tests; they are
devices to quell some of our worries that some professionals may have
slipped through their training and actually be totally incompetent. IN
THE CASE OF PSYCHOLOGY, THEY ARE ALSO WAYS FOR THE PRIVATE ORGANIZATION
, THE ApA, TO ENFORCE ITS GUILD STANDARDS. From that standpoint what
you have been barking about as if it were a badge of honor is a scarlet
letter. Here is the financial statement of Client Advocates: money in:
$ 0.00 Did you save face enough yet??? -- b jesness
Cognitee
And Leslie,
Let me addresss the following: (quoting you):
"Further, you do a lot of potential _harm_ to the people you
_claim_ to care about by putting totally bogus and inaccurate ideas into
their heads about professional psychologists. There are many people out
there who need help, and if your posts scare them off from seeking help,
well, _you_ try to live with that. One of the reasons I started the
advocacy work that I do is because of two suicides: teenagers who
_didn't_
get the high-level care they needed and were "treated" by lower level
professionals. " (end quote)
Leslie, the good evidence is simply not in that professionals are
better for most counseling. And I will not let science-pretenders say
so. *But* my point is not to get rid of professionals, but make them do
research to allow them to see where they should concentrate their
efforts (INCLUDING developing new treatments,) WHILE AT THE SAME TIME
finding a reasonable and justified way to sanction other mental health
care helpers SO WE HAVE A REASONABLE AND JUSTIFIED MENTAL HEALTH CARE
SYSTEM. With resources (AND RESEARCH) going on where it belongs and
other helpers appropriately selected, trained, and appropriately
assigned , we would VERY LIKELY in several ways have MUCH better and
more accessible mental health care. It is conceited, arrogant, pompous,
pretentious people like you and the APA that have been encouraging gross
negligence along these lines. Science is science and pretense is
pretense. AND YES, I SAY WHAT I HAVE JUST DESCRIBED ABOUT THE APA IS
KILLING CHILDREN. I have accused them of gross negligence. If they
weren't an accrediting body that also controlled most publications they
might be ok. But now, one case somewhere sometime will get "deep
pockets." -- b jesness
Cognitee
And Leslie,
What did you really do *for your* DEGREE, in experimental psychology?
You talk about working with kids, but it is not clear you did that for
your degree. Which was it: RATS *OR* PIGEONS ! Again the years
beyond that experimental degree (apparently iINCLUDING your supervison
time) is extremely meager by todays standards. Your pomposity is a
defense. <head down laughing> I suggest you don't talk to me again.
Mental health care is limited.
Cognitee
Finally, Leslie,
"Client Advocates" is an alternate name for B.R.A.D. It makes
dishonsest psychologists (*LYING PRETENDEERS*) more accountable, for one
thing. It promotes science for another. Thanks for asking, bless you
!:
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. The various treatments and programs
offered by each professional mental health service provider should be
outlined in some detail in a booklet made available to clients. 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, engendering appropriate expectations.
Counseling is considered a most noble cooperative endeavor, requiring
the most consideration, judgement, and intelligence. Those who are
well-adapted will be better counselors. For this reason, and considering
the rest of the evidence, counselors/therapists should have a long
history of good adaptation.
Moreover, BRAD believes daily standards in practice should provide
for on-going research (such as for the development of reliable
diagnoses) and this should be done within each large mental health
service agency. Furthermore, basic foundation research definitively
showing that graduate-school-trained counselors are superior to other
sources of help must be done to establish the range of problems for
which special treatment by professionals is actually better (and not
inferior to other more accessible and less costly sources of help, e.g.
peer counselors or paraprofessionals). BRAD also supports (given at
present there is no evidence against it and some good evidence in its
favor): peer counseling programs and counseling programs for
paraprofessionals. BRAD seeks to demystify mental health professions
and rid it of great myths. We hope for a sensible, delineated mental
health care SYSTEM, with the care often involving peers and
paraprofessionals and for care to be provided by individuals within a
client's working community.
Leslie E. Packer, PhD
On Aug 03, 1996 15:13:48 in article <Re: Fwd from SPM: Minnesota Laws on
>I would not in a million years provide the name of my employer to
>you. Nor is it required. OR: PROVE IT !!
an instructor of psychology and that you have the right to use the title
"developmental psychologist" because of this teaching position that you
won't identify? Gee, take somebody at their word about their credentials?
What an unusual concept, Mr. Jesness.
>I have been a member of APA
>Div. 7 , Developmental Psychology, for 10 years as well as an associate
>member of the APA.
vilify at every possible turn. Now that's real integrity on your part, Mr.
Jesness. I'm impressed.
<snip>
> IN
>THE CASE OF PSYCHOLOGY, THEY ARE ALSO WAYS FOR THE PRIVATE ORGANIZATION
>, THE ApA, TO ENFORCE ITS GUILD STANDARDS. From that standpoint what
>you have been barking about as if it were a badge of honor is a scarlet
>letter.
the APA in their alleged effots to enforce its guild standards?
> Did you save face enough yet??? -- b jesness
>
Leslie E. Packer, PhD
Leslie E. Packer, PhD
On Aug 03, 1996 15:31:33 in article <Re: Fwd from SPM: Minnesota Laws on
>dishonsest psychologists (*LYING PRETENDEERS*) more accountable, for one
>thing. It promotes science for another.
Are you incorporated as a not for profit organization?
Who is on the board of directors?
--
Leslie E. Packer, PhD
Leslie E. Packer, PhD
On Aug 03, 1996 15:24:04 in article <Re: Fwd from SPM: Minnesota Laws on
>better for most counseling. And I will not let science-pretenders say
>so. *But* my point is not to get rid of professionals, but make them do
>research to allow them to see where they should concentrate their
>efforts (INCLUDING developing new treatments,) WHILE AT THE SAME TIME
>finding a reasonable and justified way to sanction other mental health
>care helpers SO WE HAVE A REASONABLE AND JUSTIFIED MENTAL HEALTH CARE
>SYSTEM.
research. Stop throwing tantrums and making wild accusations and do
something constructive.
<snip> It is conceited, arrogant, pompous,
>negligence along these lines. Science is science and pretense is
>pretense. AND YES, I SAY WHAT I HAVE JUST DESCRIBED ABOUT THE APA IS
>KILLING CHILDREN.
> I have accused them of gross negligence. If they
>weren't an accrediting body that also controlled most publications they
>might be ok. But now, one case somewhere sometime will get "deep
>pockets." -- b jesness
who responded to it? You specifically stated that the APA was taking your
accusation very seriously. Please reprint the text of the letter you have
supposedly received from the APA saying that they are taking your
accusation very seriously.
Leslie E. Packer, PhD
On Aug 03, 1996 15:27:52 in article <Re: Fwd from SPM: Minnesota Laws on
>You talk about working with kids, but it is not clear you did that for
>your degree. Which was it: RATS *OR* PIGEONS !
experimental psychology, Mr. Jessness.
In addition, I wonder whether you have reading comprehension problems. If
you will re-read my answer to your inquiry, I specifically told you no
pigeons and no rats. What is there about that sentence that you find
difficult to comprehend?
In another post in this newsgroup, I believe I actually described my
doctoral work to Paul.
My doctoral dissertation, if that's what you referring to as the work FOR
MY degree (and all of my work was towards my PhD) was with HUMAN BEINGS.
Yes, Mr. Jesness, some researchers actually work with HUMAN BEINGS and not
rats or pigeons.
Now I will repeat Larry Lyon's suggestion to you that you go read an
undergraduate text on experimental psychology. The one by McGuigan is very
good, for starters. After you've read it and can demonstrate to me that
you've actually read it, then perhaps I will try to answer further
questions from you. But until you do, I won't waste my time answering your
high-school level questions. If your masters program in ed psychology
required you to take experimental design, I find it incomprehensible that
you know so little as to suggest that my research would (have to) be with
rats or pigeons.
> Again the years
>beyond that experimental degree (apparently iINCLUDING your supervison
>time) is extremely meager by todays standards.
years of supervised post-doctoral work before one can even sit for the
licensing exam.
And how is that meager compared to your proposed paraprofessionals? <head
tipped, polite inquiring look>
>Your pomposity is a
>defense. <head down laughing> I suggest you don't talk to me again.
>Mental health care is limited.
posts here, they'd make you a priority. Just don't let them assign you to
a paraprofessional.
Cognitee
Jesness to Packer:
Yes, about my job, you can believe me as a matter of respect (as I,
in many regards, believe you). I might also point out that IN MY VIEW
(and the view I think of all thinking and reasonably informed people)
MAKING *SOME* CASES AGAINST PROFESSIONAL CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGY IS NOT
BEYOND THE CAPABILITIES OF AN INFORMED LAY PERSON. I think it is time
you look to the information provided, the data (or the SHOWN *LACK* OF
SUCH), and the reasoning and consider the argument. I personally do not
find YOU (in particular) useful to engage here, though.
Looking at an argument would surely require some trust BUT ALSO SOME
investigation ON YOUR PART. Again: I think much dialog about many
problems in the counseling/therapy field is very much open to lay
persons. I think it is time you become "welcoming" to an appropriately
broad audience HERE IN THIS NEWSGROUP. Or, maybe you should be writing
letters-to-editors of professional journals.
SO GET OFF THE CONCEITED PRETENTIOUS CREDENTIALS STUFF. I would like
not to waste another second on this and let issues fall aside. (I
believe you would, though). -- b jesness
Cognitee
Leslie,
The charge against the APA was made to all executive officers and all
executive offices. And I say: the ApA is killing children. People can
decide who to believe. I think argument is becoming a more important
thing now (and "credentials" less). We know you don't necessarily know
much here.
By the way if I look up you disertation, will you have rats or
pigeons as subjects ?? !! <head down, feet stomping crying with
laughter>
And Leslie, to show all modern psychologist respect, I would stop
honking my horn about your credentionals, I were you. You are now
recognized as a world-class curmudgeon ! And A fool.
Cognitee
Leslie:
The following may be very difficult for a pompous
(the--system-is-on-my-side-so-I-have-POWER), status-minded individual to
underestand. It makes sense to most humans that are not deranged:
BRAD (Client Advocates) , is a grassroots organization composed of
individuals, KNOWN ONLY TO EACH OTHER, who make all the determiniations
INDIVIDUALLY about how to specialize to get a job done or how to
cooperate with each other. The organiztion has served only to informed
other members of the existence of others AND THEIR WORK.
All are honorary members of B.R.A.D. (aka "Client Advocates") if
they are thorough-going scientists, believe there is a big problem with
the "counseling/therapy field" today, and subscribe to the basic tenents
of the very basic manifesto, NOW STATED AGAIN :
Cognitee
Dear MS. Leslie "not-that-kind" Packer, <the laughing hyena>,
I apologize. I see all your work (even for the dissertation) must
have been with humans. Congrats (I guess), though there is no way of
telling what this means. What do you know that the real clinical people
study ? This is still an open question (THOUGH I WILL ADMIT NOT
NECESSARILY A VERY IMPORTANT ONE). Sounds like clinically you just had
2 years on-the-job training. But maybe that's just how it sounds.
Hey, doesn't much matter EVEN IF CLINICAL TRAINING WAS IMPORTANT for
you possibly work mainly with retards anyway (often not rocket science).
Leslie: If there were enough people like you we could start a
psychology.creditentials newsgroup.
I've read McGuigan as an undergraduate. Unlike MANY MANY graduate
trained psyhologists, I have a full hefty undergaduate major there too.
I am a real behavioral scientist, age 16 to the present (I'm now 42).
Not a sicko hack, like many. It has been my life's study.
I shall never ask you any questions you don't force me to, because I
find you not worth talking with at all. You would likely either
needlessly and pointless nit pick (TO NO GOOD OR RELEVANT PURPOSE) *OR*
bring up some kind of status or credentials thing (e.g. "...well, I've
been in court"). The ApA will soon be in court too but it will not have
the effect you'd expect on its status. -- b jesness
Cognitee
Dear Leslie,
I responded to this, but my post went "who knows where". Some funny
business is going on again. (Probably some unethical hacks that can't
fight fair are at work again. I also had at least 2 disappearing
posts.) "Therapists" or their friends have "mail bombed" me several
times, make inaccurate complaints against me and threatened me. And,
this too has happened before. You got a friend, Leslie, maybe much like
you.
ON THE TOPIC, briefly: I have read the author you note, having
studied psychology formally (unlike MANY clinicians) since 16 y.o. -- b
jesness
Leslie E. Packer, PhD
On Aug 03, 1996 21:29:11 in article <Re: Fwd from SPM: Minnesota Laws on
>executive offices.
please?
> And I say: the ApA is killing children.
statements you've made <smiling sweetly>.
> People can
>decide who to believe.
credentials and has no data to support his position and accusation that the
APA is killing children, or they can be more empirical.
> I think argument is becoming a more important
>thing now (and "credentials" less). We know you don't necessarily know
>much here.
dissociating so much in your posts that you sound like you're beginning to
believe it.
>By the way if I look up you disertation, will you have rats or
>pigeons as subjects ?? !! <head down, feet stomping crying with
>laughter>
up! Miracle of miracles! Now if you could only acquire the skill of
understanding what you're reading.
>And Leslie, to show all modern psychologist respect, I would stop
>honking my horn about your credentionals, I were you.
provide them... begged me to provide them... and challenged me to provide
them. And then didn't know what to do with them when you found out that
you were out of league yet again.
> You are now
>recognized as a world-class curmudgeon ! And A fool.
>
So... how about those Mets? (there's got to be a topic that you actually
know something about... sooner or later, we'll find it).
Leslie E. Packer, PhD
On Aug 03, 1996 21:42:37 in article <Re: Fwd from SPM: Minnesota Laws on
>I apologize. I see all your work (even for the dissertation) must
>have been with humans. Congrats (I guess), though there is no way of
>telling what this means. What do you know that the real clinical people
>study ? This is still an open question (THOUGH I WILL ADMIT NOT
>NECESSARILY A VERY IMPORTANT ONE).
You'll find the answer.
>Sounds like clinically you just had
>2 years on-the-job training. But maybe that's just how it sounds.
>Hey, doesn't much matter EVEN IF CLINICAL TRAINING WAS IMPORTANT for
>you possibly work mainly with retards anyway (often not rocket science).
you be permanently locked out. I am also going to forward this to the APA
and file a grievance against you. Now you have gone too far. How DARE YOU
call yourself ANY kind of an advocate?
You are a total sleazeball (IMLTHO).
Leslie E. Packer, PhD
On Aug 03, 1996 21:24:39 in article <Re: Fwd from SPM: Minnesota Laws on
>individuals, KNOWN ONLY TO EACH OTHER, who make all the determiniations
>INDIVIDUALLY about how to specialize to get a job done or how to
>cooperate with each other.
So when you filed this alleged complaint with APA, did you do it in your
name, or did you do it in the name of B.R.A.D. or "Client Advocates?"
And have you actually had any individual clients who asked for and received
advocacy services that benefitted them?
Leslie E. Packer, PhD
Leslie E. Packer, PhD
On Aug 03, 1996 21:17:13 in article <Re: Fwd from SPM: Minnesota Laws on
"Psychologist">, 'Cognitee <Cogn...@aol.com>' wrote, in part:
>I think it is time
>you look to the information provided, the data (or the SHOWN *LACK* OF
>SUCH), and the reasoning and consider the argument.
And when Ed Anderson and I showed you clearly that the design, the data,
and the statistics did _not_ support your assertions about the study, you
started trying to cover up by blaming the APA and everybody else because
there are no data to support what you want to believe.
And then when I wouldn't just accept your dogmatic statements, you started
flailing hysterically.
And then when I wasn't intimidated by your hysterical flailings, you
started attacking me personally, making sexually harassing remarks, and
attempting to impugn my professional credentials and representations. You
seem to have real difficulty with a woman disagreeing with you. I wonder
if you would accuse a male psychologist of emasculating you. Frankly, I
don't give a damn what your sexual problems are -- you're not going to take
them out on me.
And when I still didn't cave in to your attempts to manipulate me or
others, you posted an attempt to intimidate me on the boards in s.p.m. by
referring to my address and phone number.
And so AOL took action against you, Mr. Jesness.
And you continue, today, to post harassing remarks about my credentials
that shows you don't understand squat about professional psychology and/or
are so out of control that you can't even read and process clearly.
So now you are attempting to turn things back to the original question,
which I have already refuted as a way of diverting me and others from the
fact that you haven't answered some very fair questions that were put to
you about your assertions.
Ain't gonna work, Mr. Jesness. Maybe it would work with your
paraprofessionals, but it ain't gonna work here.
Post your answers to the questions you have been asked by me, Paul, and
Bernadine.
Does the phrase "put up or shut up" mean anything to you?
Or would you rather discuss the Mets because you have nothing of substance
to support your assertions? I sincerely hope that you haven't just been
"blowing smoke" and are able to tell us to whom you addressed your
complaint and who responded to it and how.
> I think it is time you become "welcoming" to an appropriately
>broad audience HERE IN THIS NEWSGROUP.
audience. It is rejecting of inappropriate postings such as yours. If
you don't feel welcome here, stop blaming us and take a hard look at your
own behavior. Doesn't the fact that you have had your account(s) taken
away from you give you any clue that it is not us, but _you_ who are the
source of your problems here?
>Or, maybe you should be writing
>letters-to-editors of professional journals.
editor. I take appropriate steps to correct the situation. You might want
to consider trying that strategy sometime.
>SO GET OFF THE CONCEITED PRETENTIOUS CREDENTIALS STUFF.
really tick you off that an uppity woman like me not only got a PhD as an
experimental (more scientifically oriented) psychologist, but is actually
licensed, too. Whereas you, well, you know... <g>
Go for the gold, Mr. Jesness. Answer the questions put to you
forthrightly. Or go back to your cybercafe and see if someone wants to
discuss the Mets with you.
Leslie E. Packer, PhD
Cognitee
Dear Leslie,
The law does not even require that I am employed. Just that I
graduated from an accredited institution and am offering services of
lecturing in the field. I exceed these requirements (given act.
experience, etc.). Thus for no purpose ("of credentials", or relating
to legal, ethical, or normative behavior) do you need to know more. SO
YOU KNOW WHERE I AM COMING FROM: Note especially again (2) below. HERE
AGAIN IS the relevant part of the statute quoted (as quoted by Tim):
No individual shall present or permit presentation of that individual to
the public by any title incorporating the word "psychological,"
"psychologist" or "psychology" other than those so licensed by Laws
1973, chapter 685; except that:
(1) Any psychologically trained individual employed by educational
institutions recognized by a regional accrediting organization, federal,
state, county, or local governmental institutionsm agencies, research
facilities, or agencies providing services on a contracting basis may
be represented by the academic or research title designated by that
organization;
(2) Any psychologically trained individual from such recognized
institutions, as given in clause (1), may offer lecture services and
be exempt from the provisions of this section (end quote)
READ (2) OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN AND IT WILL COME
TO YOU. Then ask yourself, Leslie: do my credentials really make me
great?; have I achieved greatness so that I need not worry that all will
forever here on see me as great? Do this over and over until you
realize you have to prove yourself not just every day but every second.
Cognitee
Leslie,
You looked at one study, one design, nit-picked and buried the issue
(WHICH IS STILL VERY MUCH ALIVE). I didn't change the topic BUT YOU
ESSENTIALLY DO. Both you and Ed do it. Subterfuge.
MY POSTS HAVE BEEN THOROUGHLY APPROPRIATE, you are just having
troubles and looking to some authority to "sanction me." Typical
dependency on the system: A sick pathological dependency. You are part
of a slimy cancer in our society. Well, you can't expect "Daddy" or
Mommy" to help when you are having trouble. I have a number of accounts
available to me. If I have inappropriate trouble from you I shall
individually send all you abusive posts to all your providers (I have 40
now ready to go). You are threatening me and harassing me because you
can't take the heat; you are a damned dependent baby and that is all.
If you did loose me my access, you are only denying another freedom
because you don't like their view. (You propably have a little black
mustasche.) I shall make sure this never happens. I shall make sure
that justice in my mind prevails. End of discussion.
I shall make you a deal. Do not discuss me for 5 days or harass me
and I will leave this newsgroup (this one newsgroup) permanently. This
is a better version of the same deal offered before. I shall check
tomorrow and subsequent days to see if you want me there or NOT. Your
choice. Not addressing me OR THE SINGLE TIRED ISSUE THAT'S LEFT THAT YOU
SEEM WILLING TO ADDRESS should not be hard. I no longer look to
"therapists" to discuss their own field's issues.-- b jesness
Cognitee
I AM READING LESLIE Packer no longer.
Cognitee
I am reading Leslie Packer no longer.
Mike Rael
Leslie,
BRAD talks about your work being with humans.
I'd very much like to know what *his* work is with psychology. I
have repeatedly asked the good BRAD to tell me outright what essential
principles, philosophical or psychological, that he stands for.
I have never made any secret of my own adherence to the ethical
philosophy of rational egoism, and the biocentric psychology of Nathaniel
Branden. I have always been ready to supply reasons and arguments for
each position I advocate publicly or privately.
I have yet to see this professor of psychology affirm *anything*
positive about psychology. Ever.
He has one hobbyhorse, which resembles the talk of the Fascists
during World War II in this respect: they would inveigh against poverty,
against
greed, against selfish interests, and have no
solution whatsoever except to say "the system must be scrapped..."
best always,
Mike
Mike Rael
la...@netcom.com
listowner, self-esteem-self-help
PS:I presume that when Brad was talking about your working with retards,
he was referring to your uncanny ability to understand their (his)
motivation. Which was, I believe, a compliment (and therefore, untrue):)
Leslie E. Packer, PhD (lpa...@nyc.pipeline.com) wrote:
: On Aug 03, 1996 21:42:37 in article <Re: Fwd from SPM: Minnesota Laws on
:
--
Mike Rael
la...@netcom.com
listowner, self-esteem-self-help
To subscribe, email:list...@netcom.com No subject header
Message: subscribe self-esteem-self-help
"If you have a serious, ongoing problem, you will be referred to a
therapist of your choice. The listowner, while experienced in these
areas, is not a licensed therapist."
Paul Bernhardt
In article <4tvimc$o...@news1.t1.usa.pipeline.com>,
lpa...@nyc.pipeline.com(Leslie E. Packer, PhD) wrote:
> The Minnesota State Board says you are exempt in the sense that you can
> offer lecture services. Your title in your academic institution (and what
> institution is that, btw?) gives you (or gave you, since I have no idea how
> you are _now_ employed and what you _will be_ teaching in September) the
> title of "Instructor," correct?
>
> In your activities in this public newsgroup, you are not offering "lecture
> services." You are trying to influence public opinion, public policy, and
> professional activities. You list your organization as "Client Advocate."
> And in _those_ roles, you have tried to cite your credentials.
So, it seems the only title Brad can claim is Lecturer (or Instructor) in
(Developmental) Psychology.... Or Master of Educational Psychology.
But to call yourself a Psychologist, or a Scientist (even though it is not
a restricted title, as far as I know).
The key to this issue is the titling noun: Lecturer, Instructor, and
Master are all appropriate titling nouns. The following words to the
titling nouns are the qualifiers. When you use Psychologist (or Scientist)
you are using a qualifier as if it were a title. Is this clear for you
now, Brad?
+=============================================================+
Paul C. Bernhardt, M.S. in Social Psychology (non-clinical)
+=============================================================+
Paul Bernhardt
In article <4tuhfq$3...@stratus.skypoint.net>, Cognitee <Cogn...@aol.com> wrote:
> I have never presented myself as just a "psychologist" not in any way
> HAVE I implied I am licensed OR that I offer such services.
>
> WHERE'S MY APOLOGY LESLIE ???
>
> I have never presented myself as just a "psychologist" not in any way
> HAVE I implied I am licensed OR that I offer such services.
>
> WHERE'S MY APOLOGY LESLIE ???
<snip further repeats...>
This is a kind of improvement Brad. You are now doing your repeated
posting in a single posting. Thanks for your efforts.
Paul Bernhardt
> I responded to this, but my post went "who knows where". Some funny
> business is going on again. (Probably some unethical hacks that can't
> fight fair are at work again. I also had at least 2 disappearing
> posts.) "Therapists" or their friends have "mail bombed" me several
> times, make inaccurate complaints against me and threatened me. And,
> this too has happened before. You got a friend, Leslie, maybe much like
> you.
Again Brad, the internet, and usenet (separate entities, actually, though
usenet uses the internet to distribute messages), are not perfect.
Messages are lost, some of mine have been as well. You have not seen me
paranoically wonder about hacks or other nefarious agents distrupting my
posting... I suspect your continued expressed lack of understanding of
this aspect of the internet is simply a manifestation of your pathology.
If you want to learn more about the internet... surf to
http://www.lib.utah.edu/navigator/
for a college course which is an introduction to the internet.
Cognitee
Dear Paul,
I am trained in developmental psychology (my coursework is as
extensive as any in any program yielding an M.A.) *and* lecture in that.
I have for 10 years. The most reasonable laws of the State I live in
say I can say I am a develepmental psychologist (I am not a charlatan or
a clinical psychologist, I have no license -- no one has felt a need to
try to protect "society" from possible incompetence of those in my
field).
I would remind you, Paul that several perople have expressed
irritation on this topid of ME and of credentials. Thank you. -- b
jesness
Cognitee
Paul: The term I *may* use is "developmental psychologist". I am also a
world reknown ethologist (hey, ya' I can *say* that too). -- b jesness,
well-known behavioral scientist
Cognitee
P.P.S. Is it clear for you now Paul? Maybe we should start a BRAD's
credentials newsgroup. Though, I WOULD NOT ENTER IT. I'm sure interest
is dwingling in this one.
Ed Anderson
la...@netcom.com (Mike Rael) wrote:
>Leslie,
> I'd very much like to know what *his* work is with psychology. I
>have repeatedly asked the good BRAD to tell me outright what essential
>principles, philosophical or psychological, that he stands for.
I personally am not interested. They're no doubt as well-thought out
and humane as his other opinions.
>.... I have yet to see this professor of psychology affirm *anything*
>positive about psychology. Ever.
My biggest problem with Brad is not what he does to this newsgroup --
which is bad enough...you know, it could be a really nice place, we have
some wonderful people here, hiding amidst the rubble... My biggest
problem is what he must do to students. I was thrown off track for years
by a professor like him, in my master's program...nearly gave up
psychology entirely...of course, he was much more intelligent and
persuasive than Brad is, so I can only hope Brad's students are not as
injured by him as I was by this man...
ed
Paul Bernhardt
> BRAD (Client Advocates) , is a grassroots organization composed of
> individuals, KNOWN ONLY TO EACH OTHER, who make all the determiniations
> INDIVIDUALLY about how to specialize to get a job done or how to
> cooperate with each other. The organiztion has served only to informed
> other members of the existence of others AND THEIR WORK.
This is suspiciously similar to the manner of organization of several
notorious organizations. First to come to mind is the Ku Klux Klan,
Freemen, Aryan Nation, etc...
Are you sure you want to organize in such a way? It draws unfortunate parallels.
Ed Anderson
Cognitee <Cogn...@aol.com> wrote:
>Leslie,....you are just having
>dependency on the system: A sick pathological dependency. You are part
>of a slimy cancer in our society. Well, you can't expect "Daddy" or
>mustasche....
Look at the way you phrase everything...it's all about "the system,"
"authorities," "sanctions," "Daddy," etc. To me, it's clear who has the
authority issue here.
> I shall make you a deal. Do not discuss me for 5 days or harass me
>and I will leave this newsgroup (this one newsgroup) permanently.
Oh, fuck you. You'll never leave. Your life would be empty without this
newsgroup, I suspect. Pathetic.
ed
Ed Anderson
>And when Ed Anderson and I showed you clearly that the design, the data,
>and the statistics did _not_ support your assertions about the study, you
>started trying to cover up by blaming the APA and everybody else because
>there are no data to support what you want to believe.
>And then when I wouldn't just accept your dogmatic statements, you started
>flailing hysterically.
>And then when I wasn't intimidated by your hysterical flailings, you
>started attacking me personally, making sexually harassing remarks, and
>attempting to impugn my professional credentials and representations.
is that paper coming? <s>
>So now you are attempting to turn things back to the original question,
>which I have already refuted as a way of diverting me and others from the
>fact that you haven't answered some very fair questions that were put to
>you about your assertions.
>Ain't gonna work, Mr. Jesness. Maybe it would work with your
>paraprofessionals, but it ain't gonna work here.
Boy, even though you are not even a "clinician" <snicker>, you're doing
just fine handling a rather severe case... The dodges are never-ending,
Leslie. You will never be able to pin him down...it is too threatening
for him to respond to things directly... You have pinned him to the
audience's satisfaction, of course. I think the referee must be up to a
count of about 300 by now...
><chuckling> You really are obsessed with my credentials, aren't you? Must
>really tick you off that an uppity woman like me not only got a PhD as an
>experimental (more scientifically oriented) psychologist, but is actually
>licensed, too. Whereas you, well, you know... <g>
Ooo...hitting him right where it hurts. <wince>
ed
Peter
>Leslie:
> The following may be very difficult for a pompous
>(the--system-is-on-my-side-so-I-have-POWER), status-minded individual to
>underestand. It makes sense to most humans that are not deranged:
>
>individuals, KNOWN ONLY TO EACH OTHER, who make all the determiniations
>INDIVIDUALLY about how to specialize to get a job done or how to
>cooperate with each other. The organiztion has served only to informed
>other members of the existence of others AND THEIR WORK.
>they are thorough-going scientists, believe there is a big problem with
>the "counseling/therapy field" today, and subscribe to the basic tenents
>of the very basic manifesto, NOW STATED AGAIN :
All of which fails to answer the questions posed, which were:
On Aug 03, 1996 15:31:33 in article <Re: Fwd from SPM: Minnesota Laws
on "Psychologist">, 'Cognitee <Cogn...@aol.com>' wrote:
>"Client Advocates" is an alternate name for B.R.A.D. It makes
>dishonsest psychologists (*LYING PRETENDEERS*) more accountable, for one
>thing. It promotes science for another.
1. What you posted is irrelevant to my question.
2. Are you incorporated as a not for profit organization?
3. Who is on the board of directors?
Looking forward to a non-slippery evasive answer. Thank you.
--
Peter
<who's got another bank account:
bank with ???????'s - they're giving money away.>
Peter
In article <4u0p83$5...@news1.t1.usa.pipeline.com>,
lpa...@nyc.pipeline.com writes
>And when I still didn't cave in to your attempts to manipulate me or
>others, you posted an attempt to intimidate me on the boards in s.p.m. by
>referring to my address and phone number.
HE DID WHAT?????
I had to repost/respond to this, just for the benefit of those lurkers
and new arrivals who think that you, Leslie, have a problem.
Oh, B???ley. Naughty, naughty, naughty leeetle boy. _You_ have a
problem. _Not_ _Leslie_. Go for a diaper change, humm? You're changing
s.p.p into Kakania.
Peter
In article <4u0tgn$s...@stratus.skypoint.net>, Cognitee
<Cogn...@aol.com> writes
> MY POSTS HAVE BEEN THOROUGHLY APPROPRIATE, you are just having
Not so, not if you've taken to posting her personal details to news.
Bad, bad, bad boy.
Ach, mein Gott in der himmel, schenk mir ein B??? mitt'n pimmel.
Peter
In article <4u0gb7$n...@stratus.skypoint.net>, Cognitee
<Cogn...@aol.com> writes
>Leslie,
> The charge against the APA was made to all executive officers and all
>decide who to believe. I think argument is becoming a more important
>much here.
>pigeons as subjects ?? !! <head down, feet stomping crying with
>laughter>
Head down, feet stomping, crying with laughter? Ffffuuuhhh. Sounds
verrry serious to me.
> And Leslie, to show all modern psychologist respect, I would stop
>honking my horn about your credentionals, I were you. You are now
>recognized as a world-class curmudgeon ! And A fool.
So, you _do_ honk your horn about Leslie's credentials then, in spite of
your denials elsewhere? Or was this a posting from one of your
'supporters', or 'alters', or what?
Peter
>Dear Leslie,
> I responded to this, but my post went "who knows where". Some funny
>business is going on again. (Probably some unethical hacks that can't
>fight fair are at work again. I also had at least 2 disappearing
>posts.) "Therapists" or their friends have "mail bombed" me several
>times, make inaccurate complaints against me and threatened me. And,
>this too has happened before. You got a friend, Leslie, maybe much like
>you.
>studied psychology formally (unlike MANY clinicians) since 16 y.o. -- b
>jesness
Aaaaah. I have an awful lot of Bradley postings referring to his
postings being 'pulled'. A long time ago we agreed that this was
paranoia. Well, Brad didn't, but we did... ...in other groups.
Nighty, nighty, sweet leeetle boy.
:-(+)
Cognitee
Dear Ed,
The actual record has either been seen by thinking readers or should
be examined. Both you and Paul give a false representation. It is
beyond bias (and think you know how one could characterize that).
Cognitee
Dear Ed,
With all those words you quote like "authority"..., I am accurately
indicating the nature of Leslie's appeals (and solace).
I would be pathetic if this "newsgroup" were my "family", wouln't it,
bro' ? Frankly I often think that this newsgroup is down on people who
are culturally or ethnically different (in being against all that is
against their "system").
Leslie E. Packer, PhD
On Aug 04, 1996 01:13:59 in article <Re: Fwd from SPM: Minnesota Laws on
>You looked at one study, one design, nit-picked and buried the issue
>(WHICH IS STILL VERY MUCH ALIVE).
> I didn't change the topic BUT YOU
>ESSENTIALLY DO. Both you and Ed do it. Subterfuge.
works. I didn't change the subject. You did. When you couldn't provide
data to support your claim, you shifted the discussion to blaming the APA.
And I objected strongly to your characterizations of the APA.
>MY POSTS HAVE BEEN THOROUGHLY APPROPRIATE, you are just having
>dependency on the system: A sick pathological dependency. You are part
>of a slimy cancer in our society. Well, you can't expect "Daddy" or
>available to me.
> If I have inappropriate trouble from you I shall
>individually send all you abusive posts to all your providers (I have 40
>now ready to go).
And as to all your other accounts, rest assured that if you abuse those
accounts, I wouldn't hesitate to contact those providers, too. Nor would
others here. If you post responsibly, then you have no reason to fear any
complaint from me.
I support free exchange of ideas. I do not support personal abuse,
threats, sexual harassment, and intimidation, which pretty much describes
your posts to me and to some others here. You are reaping what you have
sown.
>I shall make you a deal. Do not discuss me for 5 days or harass me
>and I will leave this newsgroup (this one newsgroup) permanently.
you confine yourself to polite discussion of issues and refrain from
personal attacks and intimidation and threats. In _all_ of the psych
newsgroups.
I am not trying to get rid of you permanently to stop you from expressing
your concerns. I am trying to stop your abusive posts, multiple postings,
etc. As far as I'm concerned, you are free to share your ideas and concerns
in all the psych newsgroups, including this one. But I won't tolerate the
style in which you do this at times. IOW, you need to stop the personal
attacks.
And this "deal" is no different than what we do in the moderated compuserve
fora where people get locked out for violating forum etiquette when they
make personal attacks.
Please think about my offer seriously. I hope you will accept what I am
offering. If you don't, then I think you really need to accept that I am
likely to show up to refute your posts wherever you go to slander people or
malign the APA irresponsibly. Contrast that with the opportunity for
meaningful discussion of important issues. I have tried repeatedly, and in
good faith, to let you know that there are ways to advocate effectively.
Instead of poohpoohing that, try asking questions to learn. You stand a
much better chance of influencing the APA with a totally different approach
than what you've been doing. In the past, I have done a good bit of
advocacy teaching on the 'net. I have no problem sharing what I've
learned about how to effect changes. And I offered that to you. But I
will not help you if you are attacking me or others personally.
Leslie E. Packer, PhD
--
Leslie E. Packer, PhD
Leslie E. Packer, PhD
On Aug 04, 1996 00:38:10 in article <Re: Fwd from SPM: Minnesota Laws on
>TO YOU.
the field of law. I will tell you, however, that I don't read or intepret
those statements the same way you do. But discussing it isn't going to be
productive.
>Then ask yourself, Leslie: do my credentials really make me
>great?; have I achieved greatness so that I need not worry that all will
>forever here on see me as great? Do this over and over until you
>realize you have to prove yourself not just every day but every second.
argument. If you try to use professional credentials as the basis for a
position, you should be prepared to be questioned or challenged about them.
When I am offering a professional opinion, I always make the basis for my
statements clear (e.g., "having taught..." or "having worked with...").
You certainly could have raised the same issues as a layperson and they
would have been treated just as respectfully as I initially treated your
posts. But when you start trying to talk as a professional/colleague, then
you change the ground rules for the debate, and should expect to be held to
the same standards that I would hold anyone else -- i.e., be able to back
your claims or conclusions with hard data.
And before you claim bias or any other motivation, you might want to go
back and look at other threads in which I participate and in which
professional issues are discussed. I have not treated any of the others
here any differently than I treated you. The only difference is that you
made your attacks personal and professional instead of just discussing the
issues. I gave you a choice. You made a bad choice (in my opinion).
And I feel no need to prove myself to you or anyone else.
Cognitee
Dear Leslie,
The less-than-great Strupp and Hadley study (1979 !!!) is the last
controlled study by the "therapy field" to compare professionals against
other reasonable sorts of helpers. It is no my fault it sucks, though
that is not my view. Let's say it does suck. It little matters. And
you damn well know it. THE *MAIN POINT* IS THAT AS OF YET, DUE ONLY TO
SHEER NEGLIGENCE, professional helpers have not been compared against
reasonably selected and/or reasonably trained OTHERs. I shall not
again outline all that could be learned from this, but it includes much
data that could come under the heading, "the importance of selection"
and much that would come under the heading "the places where
professionals are most needed and were helping techniques need to be
developed." Also it would quite possible allow us to use other sorts
of helpers without irrational worries.
I have never maligned the ApA. If anything I have been too kind in my
characterization. -- b jesness
Cognitee
Leslie,
You don't just like to harass folks that are culturally or ethnically
different do you? -- b j
Peter
In article <4u2tgh$j...@stratus.skypoint.net>, Cognitee
<Cogn...@aol.com> writes
>I have no license -- no one has felt a need to
>try to protect "society" from possible incompetence of those in my
>field).
The most pertinent parts of your post are above; IMHO you are a
charlatan; having an MA you propose to tell 'scientists' how to practise
science, and therapists how to practise therapy; where the two join, you
also prate. You, IMHO, are an onanist, and a charlatan. How can you, an
MA claiming to be a professor, be otherwise? Ask Dr. Packer about
senior academic posts.
Ed Anderson
BJ,
The point about Strupp & Hadley isn't whether it "sucks" or not. The
point is your inability to read and accurately represent the study you
cite more than any other. Like a bible-thumper who talks about "The
Eight Commandments" or somesuch.
ed
Cognitee
Dear Ed,
I've read the study 2 times recently and presented quite adequately
FOR THE PURPOSE AT HAND. We COULD *VERY* REASONABLY move on to the main
point WHICH IS IN NO WAY LOST **BUT** you don't want to get into that.
Fine, but the case is still there and I shall keep presenting it. You
darn well know what I'm talking about. -- b jesness
Cognitee
Dear Leslie and Readers,
I don't know what "he" your talking about, but *I* have never ever
posted anyone's address and phone number (anywhere). I have not even
put peoples e-mail addresses where they don't belong, though I've been
very tempted.
I will say that I have set up provisions to improve communication and
get personal stuff off this newsgroup. See my special thread. Please
then now let's respond constructively if not positively. -- b jesness
Leslie E. Packer, PhD
On Aug 04, 1996 21:19:25 in article <Re: Fwd from SPM: Minnesota Laws on
"Psychologist">, 'Peter <Pe...@brentano.demon.co.uk>' wrote:
>>And when I still didn't cave in to your attempts to manipulate me or
>>others, you posted an attempt to intimidate me on the boards in s.p.m. by
>>referring to my address and phone number.
>
>HE DID WHAT?????
>
>I had to repost/respond to this, just for the benefit of those lurkers
>and new arrivals who think that you, Leslie, have a problem.
--
Thank you, Peter. They also may not have seen the contents of the last
e-mail he sent me, which he quickly claimed were a "joke" when I publicly
posted them so that everyone could see what this man does and why I refuse
to accept e-mail from his, as other newsgroup regulars have also done (and
for the same reasons).
I would very much like to have more time to spend on the interesting
professional discussions that go on here. Hopefully, Mr. Jesness will
think carefully about the proposal I suggested earlier and agree to it.
Until then, I am not willing to invest any energy in replying to even his
more serious posts.
Leslie
Cognitee
Leslie,
I invite you to write to me through a friend about anything anytime
and I shall never reply (which is your wish). This will partially
facilitate taking care of some "personal concerns" I suspect. Write to
me through my friend at BrRec...@aol.com thanks. -- b jesness
SRoweCanoe
Brad J. said:
>Hey, doesn't much matter EVEN IF CLINICAL TRAINING WAS IMPORTANT for
>you possibly work mainly with retards anyway (often not rocket science).
This is a rather shocking statement, even for Brad. Doesn't seem like
much of a client advocate to me.
Steven Rowe
Leslie E. Packer, PhD
On Aug 05, 1996 03:32:59 in article <Re: Fwd from SPM: Minnesota Laws on
have a proposal before you. I am still waiting for your answer, although
perhaps you've posted it and I haven't seen it yet.
Leslie E. Packer, PhD
On Aug 05, 1996 06:57:03 in article <Re: Fwd from SPM: Minnesota Laws on
Uh huh. And he has the chutzpah to ask whether I discriminate or am
prejudiced against minority groups???
Cognitee
Leslie,
Send the proposal to the addresss indicated, like a civil person and
I will study it: I'm receiving mail at: BrRec...@aol.com
M.D.M
Leslie E. Packer, PhD wrote:
==snip==
> I can't speak for anyone else, but the only "deal" I will accept is that
> you confine yourself to polite discussion of issues and refrain from
> personal attacks and intimidation and threats. In _all_ of the psych
> newsgroups.
>
> I am not trying to get rid of you permanently to stop you from expressing
> your concerns. I am trying to stop your abusive posts, multiple postings,
> etc. As far as I'm concerned, you are free to share your ideas and concerns
> in all the psych newsgroups, including this one. But I won't tolerate the
> style in which you do this at times. IOW, you need to stop the personal
> attacks.
Amen Leslie.
Since Brad claims to be a developmental psychologist and has issue with
the teen suicide rate, one way that he could contribute to this newsgroup
would be to start a discussion around the developmental issues regarding
this topic dear to his heart. In this way he would be contributing to
the flow of ideas and help us (including him) reach a point where maybe
we can help our teens before they resort to suicide.
Mark Morin, MA
Doctoral Student
Leslie E. Packer, PhD
On Aug 05, 1996 23:40:07 in article <Re: Fwd from SPM: Minnesota Laws on
"Psychologist">, 'Cognitee <see...@of.post>' wrote:
>Send the proposal to the addresss indicated, like a civil person and
>I will study it: I'm receiving mail at: BrRec...@aol.com
authorities about you.
And the offer expires at 3:OO PM EST Tuesday.
Cognitee
Dear Leslie,
I shall be able to answer any questions from authorities in less than
5 minutes to their complete satisfaction. GO AHEAD. PRESS ON. I need
the diversion, as you well know. Their main concern shall be: have you
ever lead anyone to believe you were a clinical psychologist, IN ANY WAY
(directly or indirectly). And my answer will be a clear "no," since I
have always said each time "...I am not licensed NOR am I a clinician."
(I might add that they will likely not even talk with me at all unless
you lie about me. They will ask you the same question AND they will
probably go on to ask whether I have offerred services for which I am
not licensed but must be. After you have answered truthfully, they will
say: "Oh I'm sorry Dr. Packer, I know you are the only real type
psychologist and I wish others would just stop saying that word." And,
by the way Leslie, I have now agreed to stop saying that word or any
vulgar or bad cuss word. BUT I WILL KEEP CHARACTERIZING THE FIELD AS IT
DESERVES !!!: Largely a bunch of pseudo-scientific sham hacks is what
cklinical psychologists are.) -- write to me at BrRec...@aol.com
Ember Beck
This from the man who:
1. when I first joined the newsgroup with a question about schizophrenia
in daeaf individuals, tried to tell me I was too dumb to understand his
argument.
2. who, when I was proposed as a moderator (with probably tons more
hands-on experience with psychotics, suicidal, demented, etc.,
individuals) said I was not qualified because I only had a BA in psych.
3. Who ran off a consumer of services with thoughts of pursuing graduate
work in psych (Deb Bottjen) because she was not
sophisticated/knowledgeable enough about psychology to put up with.
4. Who refused to dialogue with someone who had been seriously damaged
by parapros because of his lack of education in the field (Reth Hutt).
Brad, you lie through your teeth on a daily basis. You change your
psoition to fit the circumstances. YOu are a sleaze and slimeball of the
highest degree.
I've done my best to ignore you as long as you leave me alone, but this
post is just too much to remain silent about.
Ember
On 3 Aug 1996, Cognitee wrote:
> Jesness to Packer:
> Yes, about my job, you can believe me as a matter of respect (as I,
> in many regards, believe you). I might also point out that IN MY VIEW
> (and the view I think of all thinking and reasonably informed people)
> MAKING *SOME* CASES AGAINST PROFESSIONAL CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGY IS NOT
> BEYOND THE CAPABILITIES OF AN INFORMED LAY PERSON. I think it is time
> you look to the information provided, the data (or the SHOWN *LACK* OF
> SUCH), and the reasoning and consider the argument. I personally do not
> find YOU (in particular) useful to engage here, though.
> Looking at an argument would surely require some trust BUT ALSO SOME
> investigation ON YOUR PART. Again: I think much dialog about many
> problems in the counseling/therapy field is very much open to lay
> persons. I think it is time you become "welcoming" to an appropriately
> broad audience HERE IN THIS NEWSGROUP. Or, maybe you should be writing
> letters-to-editors of professional journals.
> SO GET OFF THE CONCEITED PRETENTIOUS CREDENTIALS STUFF. I would like
> not to waste another second on this and let issues fall aside. (I
> believe you would, though). -- b jesness
>
>
>
>
Ember Beck
On 3 Aug 1996, Cognitee wrote:
> BRAD (Client Advocates) , is a grassroots organization composed of
> individuals, KNOWN ONLY TO EACH OTHER, who make all the determiniations
> INDIVIDUALLY about how to specialize to get a job done or how to
> cooperate with each other. The organiztion has served only to informed
> other members of the existence of others AND THEIR WORK.
Oooohhhhhh! Spooky! Sounds like the Klan to me----being from Mississippi
originally......
Ember