I've Had It!
Paul Bernhardt
I don't know, maybe Brad the bully will consider this a victory.
He is so good at seeing his shadow. So very good.....
I know my buddy is making that a big part of his case study analysis....
But be that as it may. I have becomed sickened by reading so damned many
Brad posts, pompous and irrelevant, repetative and obnoxious. I have
become sickened by my responses....
So, my kill file is in full effect now killing Brad's posts.
Don't bother responding, Brad, because I won't read it,,, it won't show up
on my screen.
I will begin a BradFAQ soon, because it is necessary. Brad makes it
necessary. It will appear biweekly until moderation occurs.
+=============================================================+
Paul C. Bernhardt, M.S. in Psychology, University of Utah
PhD graduate student in Educational Psychology
+=============================================================+
Paul Bernhardt
Cognito2
Dear Paul,
A brad FAQ would be abusive. Simply abusive. Will any therapists
back me on this and write to Paul?? Please?? What if a *client* of
yours reported this????
HighestLevelOfAbuseYET
Dear Readers:
Paul says "I will begin a BradFAQ soon, because it is necessary. Brad
necessary. It will appear biweekly until moderation occurs."
TO STAND UP FOR ME AND DISCOURAGE THIS *CLEARLY ABUSIVE* ACTIVITY Paul
proposes. I want you to e-mail Paul and effectively stop someone from
abusing another. Paul is a bully who wants to force my principled,
educated, reasoned opinions OUT. He wants to *drive* certain data
critical of therapy OFF the net (HOWEVER). What else is motivating this
behavior? This is the action of a bully and is also unethical. If this
is not discouraged and if I am not supported here the reputation of this
group shall be even more gravely in question.
There is much unbecoming behavior in this group that is hard to
explain. Look at the record. I never initatied an unsubstantive thread
At least I was always raising worthwhile questions or perspectives;
often I raised excellent questions and cited research (as much as anyone
or more)-- I always backed my assertions upon request (and this was very
frequent); I never teased or name-called (or if I did it was *very*
rarely and after extreme provacation). Nothing I say is more to anyone's
discredit than the misbehavior of those in the field themselves. -- b
jesness, M.A.
Ed Anderson
Paul.Be...@m.cc.utah.edu (Paul Bernhardt) wrote:
>....So, my kill file is in full effect now killing Brad's posts....
Ack. The room is getting smaller. Please don't leave me alone with him!
Oh, brad, although I don't have killfile capability, I'm not reading any
of your posts that go on for more than a few sentences. Just not worth
the time.
ed
James K. Cotten
Cognito2 (Cogn...@aol.com) wrote:
: Dear Paul,
: A brad FAQ would be abusive. Simply abusive. Will any therapists
: back me on this and write to Paul?? Please?? What if a *client* of
: yours reported this????
I support an FAQ so long as it contains only factual
information (no naming calling or labelling). Naive
readers deserve to know about you, Brad, bc you are
so fond of misrepresenting yourself and the field of
psychotherapy. If you weren't so invested in your
victimhood, you would see that you have created the FAQ,
and there is noone but yourself to blame.
kelly
Rolf Marvin Bře Lindgren
[Ed Anderson]
| I don't have killfile capability
yes you do, if your "capability" concept includes availability. point
your Netscape at http://www.forteinc.com/agent, and order a copy of
their commercial newsreader. it's worth it to get rid of Brad's
posts. or wait until Free Agent supports kill files.
ObPsychotherapy: are there any texts that compare Aaron Beck's approach
with behavior therapy?
--
Rolf Lindgren | Disclaimer: I am a student of Psychology with little
| clinical experience. If I sound as if I believe
9111 Sogn Studentby | that I know anything, it's due to natural arrogance.
N-0858 OSLO | FAQ: ftp://rtfm.mit.edu/pub/usenet/sci.psychology
Bandit8it
In article <4mokag$3...@stratus.skypoint.net>, Cognito2 <Cogn...@aol.com>
writes:
>Subject: Re: I've Had It!
>From: Cognito2 <Cogn...@aol.com>
>Date: 7 May 1996 22:54:08 GMT
>
>Dear Paul,
> A brad FAQ would be abusive. Simply abusive. Will any therapists
>back me on this and write to Paul?? Please?? What if a *client* of
>yours reported this????
>
Dear Paul,
I'm afraid I must agree with Brad here that I public FAQ on Brad would be
abusive. I will add that I support Mike's message that Brad post by one
name only- his own, or Cognito2, since we all know that one. It seems
like there's room for compromise here on both ends...
Please, let's not lose our sense of compassion.
Kelly Harvey
Peter
In article <4movfk$5...@artemis.it.luc.edu>, "James K. Cotten"
<jco...@orion.it.luc.edu> writes
>Cognito2 (Cogn...@aol.com) wrote:
>: Dear Paul,
>: A brad FAQ would be abusive. Simply abusive. Will any therapists
>: back me on this and write to Paul?? Please?? What if a *client* of
>: yours reported this????
>
> information (no naming calling or labelling). Naive
> readers deserve to know about you, Brad, bc you are
> so fond of misrepresenting yourself and the field of
> psychotherapy. If you weren't so invested in your
> victimhood, you would see that you have created the FAQ,
> and there is noone but yourself to blame.
Kelly, I second this. I too decided this morning to enter Brad in my
kill file. The effort of sifting through his posts in order to detect
any <unlikely> wheat among the chaff is pointless.
--
Peter
Cognito2
Dear Kelly,
I see no evidence that "therapists" here can properly assess what is
accurate (objective) information. I have grave reservations in any
case. It will certainly be set up to create BIAS (against me). Please
try to get your thinking and morals (AND ETHICS) IN ORDER. Problem is
we have too many wounded "healers" who apparently cannot think straight.
Mike Rael
Brad,
You are simply lying. That's it.
You have flamed, bullied, threatened, forced your posts down
other's throats, been totally unresponsive to others here.
You know that, when moderation comes, your postings will be
drastically changed. This is not because of any prejudice, but rather
because your posts have been inappropriate.
I'm not clear about the need for a BradFAQ, though. I think that
Dr. Grohol gave a wonderful FAQ by simply quoting a number of your posts to
demonstrate different problems with them.
I have earnestly tried to seek out a "master key," an action
that, should you choose to use it, would open up many more doors than one
would imagine beforehand. That master key is: abandon all aliases. Your
reply: Thanks, but no thanks.
Until moderation comes, the only FAQ I'd like to see is one by
Rolf, showing how each of us can use killfiles as needed.
As far as I'm concerned, I'm totally out of this discussion about
you, Brad. I'm interested in the principles of effective psychotherapy,
not going into circles over Brad. Happily, I have an effective killfile,
which (as of this post) I will use diligently.
best wishes,
Mike
Mike Rael
la...@netcom.com
listowner, self-esteem-self-help
HighestLevelOfAbuseYET (Cogn...@aol.com) wrote:
: Dear Readers:
--
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."
Mike Rael
Kelly,
What you say makes sense (as always:)).
Yes, let us not lose our sense of compassion.
But, how would you respond to this argument, Kelly? We only have
so many emotional resources at any moment in time. If we spend them on
people who do *not* deserve them, then we do not have the resources to
aid those who *do* deserve them?
In this view, I'd rather not cry overmuch about Brad, if it would
mean that I wouldn't have compassion for some of the people here who
*really* mean something to me
I don't want a Brad FAQ (though I think Paul makes an interesting
argument for it). I agree with you: it singles out Brad way too much. I
have called Brad an electronic mosquito cum moral crusader. That was a
literary simile. I think we all have to be on guard against taking a
symbol and using it as if it were the full reality! Brad is far more
complex than a crusader or a mosquito. It ill behooves us to treat him as
the Germans treated the Jews when they put them into ghettoes. Brad, as
simply one more human being, surely deserves more from us than that.
However, we still need protection against electronic pests. I suggest a
FAQ about creating killfiles! I want every person who genuinely wants to
keep Brad or anyone else here (including *me*) from their screens, to
have the capability to do so. I do not want to suggest that any
particular person be placed in a killfile. I don't want any
"official-sounding" line on that. I think
that's an issue that we all have to decide for ourselves as individuals.
best wishes,
Mike
Mike Rael
la...@netcom.com
listowner, self-esteem-self-help
Bandit8it (band...@aol.com) wrote:
: In article <4mokag$3...@stratus.skypoint.net>, Cognito2 <Cogn...@aol.com>
: writes:
: >Subject: Re: I've Had It!
: >From: Cognito2 <Cogn...@aol.com>
: >Date: 7 May 1996 22:54:08 GMT
: >
: >Dear Paul,
: > A brad FAQ would be abusive. Simply abusive. Will any therapists
: >back me on this and write to Paul?? Please?? What if a *client* of
: >yours reported this????
: >
: Dear Paul,
: I'm afraid I must agree with Brad here that I public FAQ on Brad would be
: abusive. I will add that I support Mike's message that Brad post by one
: name only- his own, or Cognito2, since we all know that one. It seems
: like there's room for compromise here on both ends...
: Please, let's not lose our sense of compassion.
: Kelly Harvey
Paul Bernhardt
> HighestLevelOfAbuseYET (Cogn...@aol.com) wrote:
> : Dear Readers:
> : Paul says "I will begin a BradFAQ soon, because it is necessary. Brad
> : makes it
> : necessary. It will appear biweekly until moderation occurs."
> : If there is an actual caring therapist in the house, I WANT HIM/HER
> : TO STAND UP FOR ME AND DISCOURAGE THIS *CLEARLY ABUSIVE* ACTIVITY Paul
> : proposes. I want you to e-mail Paul and effectively stop someone from
> : abusing another. Paul is a bully who wants to force my principled,
> : educated, reasoned opinions OUT. He wants to *drive* certain data
> : critical of therapy OFF the net (HOWEVER).
Unfortunately Brad, you are not educated (as evidenced by your out of date
references, your lack of awareness of the Handbook of Clinical Psychology,
your lack of understanding of basic statistical concepts such as effect
sizes and statistical significance.... etc.). Your opinions are not well
reasoned, they ramble and are at times incoherent. Your use of language is
sometimes so poor that any reasoning that might be within the writing is
effectively burried. I can't know if you are principled in your posts on
psychotherapy. But based on your machinegun style of posting (throw out
everything everywhere in all threads) you are not principled in your use
of the internet. That is objectionable and casts as shadow over any
principles you may have in your objections to psychotherapy.
John Stuart Mill said (in an essay on responsible public discourse) that
the minority position must be presented with exacting care to not abuse
the majority. The reason is the abuse will become the focus of the
majority's defense. Any validity of the core points of the minority
position will be lost in the argument about the abuse. That is exactly
what has happened here with you. Your abusive style may intend to grab
attention for your points, but actually it leads people away from your
points. The argument has become one of how to deal with Brad's abuse of
the internet. There is little discussion on your points. What you don't
see is the part you played in it getting this way. Read Mill, 100 years
ago he knew what you were doing and how to prevent it from going astray.
anon.
Dear Mr. Bernhardt:
As I say in a thread below, I am astonished at your disrespect of Prof.
Jesness. I am also dismayed. I cannot help but believe that , as Jesness
himself says, you are trying to inappropriately discredit him. I also
think that you are doing so, and misrepresenting Jesness, because you do
not like and cannot face the critical content he raises for discussion. I
think your response is shameful. It is inappropreately defensive and
hostile. Jesness is a well-credentialed individual who has been a
valuable participant. It now seems he is phasing out his participation.
Others, with other professional forums for communication, will likely
think twice about participating here, given the treatment Professor
Jesness has received. anon., as recommended
In article <Paul.Bernhardt-...@news.cc.utah.edu>,
Paul.Be...@m.cc.utah.edu (Paul Bernhardt) wrote:
> Unfortunately Brad, you are not educated (as evidenced by your out of date
> references, your lack of awareness of the Handbook of Clinical Psychology,
> your lack of understanding of basic statistical concepts such as effect
> sizes and statistical significance.... etc.). Your opinions are not well
> reasoned, they ramble and are at times incoherent. Your use of language is
> sometimes so poor that any reasoning that might be within the writing is
> effectively burried. I can't know if you are principled in your posts on
> psychotherapy. But based on your machinegun style of posting (throw out
> everything everywhere in all threads) you are not principled in your use
> of the internet. That is objectionable and casts as shadow over any
> principles you may have in your objections to psychotherapy.
>
[snip]
Peter
In article <an607151-130...@198.22.19.206>, "anon."
<an60...@anon.penet.fi> writes
>Dear Mr. Bernhardt:
> As I say in a thread below, I am astonished at your disrespect of Prof.
>Jesness. I am also dismayed. I cannot help but believe that , as Jesness
>himself says, you are trying to inappropriately discredit him. I also
>think that you are doing so, and misrepresenting Jesness, because you do
>not like and cannot face the critical content he raises for discussion. I
>think your response is shameful. It is inappropreately defensive and
>hostile. Jesness is a well-credentialed individual who has been a
>valuable participant. It now seems he is phasing out his participation.
>Others, with other professional forums for communication, will likely
>think twice about participating here, given the treatment Professor
>Jesness has received. anon., as recommended
Well, well, 'Prof.'! This identity of yours is in my 'kill-file', as
of now. Your syntax and poor spelling betray your identity, not that
these are generally regarded as important in newsgroups. You have a
signature, that's all. 'Anon as recommended' has appeared elsewhere,
while I am on the matter of signatures.
Next, I have seen no evidence that you are 'well-credentialed';
articles and credentials, please. Secondly, please address the
comments that Paul Bernhardt has made, namely concepts in statistics
and clinical psychology. Post something of substance, avoid
ad-hominem arguments <'to the man', 'personal'>, deal with the issues,
confine your posts to appropriate newsgroups and threads. This will
result in a reasoned debate.
Bye, bye, Brad. As I say, this identity of yours is now in my
'kill-file'.
>In article <Paul.Bernhardt-...@news.cc.utah.edu>,
>Paul.Be...@m.cc.utah.edu (Paul Bernhardt) wrote:
>> Unfortunately Brad, you are not educated (as evidenced by your out of date
>> references, your lack of awareness of the Handbook of Clinical Psychology,
>> your lack of understanding of basic statistical concepts such as effect
>> sizes and statistical significance.... etc.). Your opinions are not well
>> reasoned, they ramble and are at times incoherent. Your use of language is
>> sometimes so poor that any reasoning that might be within the writing is
>> effectively burried. I can't know if you are principled in your posts on
>> psychotherapy. But based on your machinegun style of posting (throw out
>> everything everywhere in all threads) you are not principled in your use
>> of the internet. That is objectionable and casts as shadow over any
>> principles you may have in your objections to psychotherapy.
These are valid criticisms, Paul.
--
Peter
Cognito2
Dear Peter,
It will be this presumptuousness, leading to false assumptions and
the insulting of people, that will lead to the death of this group.
Soon, it shall only be your "tight circle." In any case, I appreciate
the support of the anonymous friend.
And, Peter, you and Paul and others may someday find that this
newsgroup has been nothing but a graveyard for your reputations, so
don't "suck-up" too hard as you get your degrees (FINALLY and become
educated) if you are going to continue to destroy yourselves by
participating in the fashion you do here in this newsgroup. -- b
jesness
P.S. Notice that my posts are always stratus.skypoint or a.o.l., thus
the server used by anon is not me
Ember Beck
I find that most 'well-credentialed' people are willing to give the
specifics of those credentials--especially in the academic environment.
Therefore, I find it strange that Mr. Jesness has been unwilling to share
any details of his while still expecting others to accept everything he
says at face value.
Ember
Paul Bernhardt
In article <an607151-130...@198.22.19.206>,
an60...@anon.penet.fi (anon.) wrote:
> Dear Mr. Bernhardt:
> As I say in a thread below, I am astonished at your disrespect of Prof.
> Jesness. I am also dismayed. I cannot help but believe that , as Jesness
> himself says, you are trying to inappropriately discredit him.
Hi Brad...
New anon address? I'll add it to the killfile...
Cognito2
P.S.S. Ember,
I have asked for next to nothing to be taken at "face value." I have
presented evidence or principles and reasoning for virtually all I ever
said. Your statement is an excellent illustration of why I no longer
consider the group worthy of my presence. Also assertions that I have
not make myself known are made groundlessly. Perhaps you should check
or ask before making statements that are without foundation. Those who
have been here know more about my background than *anyone else* present
in the newsgroup. Only famous people would be better known *and they
are not here* (and likely shall never be). The truth as I see it is
that many here are quite like thugs. -- b jesness
Cognito2
P.S. Ember,
If I can have relief from the unreasonable actions and statements of
group members I SHALL BE GONE. I have suffered much abuse here.
Cognito2
Dear Paul,
Claiming that many who support me (in particular : those that are
anonymous) ARE ME does not make it so. BTY: I hope no one with an
ounce of sense follows in my footsteps because I have found the vast
majority here unworthy of thoughtful critique. -- b jesness
Cognito2
Dear Ember,
The details of my background have been by and large shared. You must
have missed it. But, I must also say that I do not consider this an
academic environment. I believe this is a group for adherants to get
and give "strokes" to "support" themselves. Otherwise rude
self-indulgence seems to be the standard.
Lorne D Gilsig
Brad,
your flavor of tirade is to destictive not to be noticed. Don't
it make you feel lonely when your most ardent supporter is you?
--
Lorne D Gilsig
"the reason of kings"
Ed Anderson
Dear Mr. anon:
Not sure if you are brad or not. Your style is different, but you say
the same sorts of things, you repeat yourself, you come on
moralistically, you claim that others are being "inappropriate" and
"misrepresenting" brad, you say we "cannot face" his brilliant
critiques...all of which are pretty bradesque. You make the same kinds
of spelling and grammatical errors he makes, too. Just some
observations....
ed
By the way, nothing of what Paul says below is untrue or particularly
objectionable to anyone interested in the truth.
>Paul.Be...@m.cc.utah.edu (Paul Bernhardt) wrote:
>> ...Brad, you are not educated (as evidenced by your out of date
>> references, your lack of awareness of the Handbook of Psychotherapy and Behavior Change,
>> your lack of understanding of basic statistical concepts such as effect
>> sizes and statistical significance.... etc.). Your opinions are not well
>> reasoned, they ramble and are at times incoherent. Your use of language is
>> sometimes so poor that any reasoning that might be within the writing is
>> effectively buried....
Peter
In article <4nb2jj$e...@stratus.skypoint.net>, Cognito2
<Cogn...@aol.com> writes
I really don't know how you sneaked in past my kill-file, but never
mind. As to degrees, Brad, I have three and I'm not terribly sure that
I want anymore; as to sucking, well, during my Part II for my M.Sc. I
blurted out one or two polemics of my own, causing my Professor to later
raise his eyebrows at me, I think that this <and some slight
unpreparedness on my part> caused the eminent Professor taking my vivre
to be a little tougher on me than I would have liked... ...I passed
though!... ...as to fashion, Bradley Jesness, you may find that some of
the things I want to say are to your liking. I just won't adopt your
manner of delivery, that's all.
Bye-bye now... ...and don't forget to play nicely.
--
Peter
Ember Beck
I've only been on this newsgroup about 3-4 months, remember? So, yes, I
guess I've missed reading about your credentials.
In addition, I find that most people who have a strong basis from which
they speak tend to be willing to share their credentials whether they are
in the academic arena or not.
Ember
Cognito2
Dear Ember,
Credentials are not *alone* a strong basis from which to speak
(especially, as folks OFTEN do, a person speaks outside of his area of
specific expertise -- a small area for most). As I've said before what
is *really* important (and really all that is often important) is the
citing of principles, data, and one's reasoning. The whole "credentials
issue" that was raised was simply one in a series of inappropriate
efforts to discredit me because people did not what issues raised EVEN
IF DATA WAS PROVIDED TO SUBSTANTIATE THEM. -- b jesness, M.A. college
instructor of psychology and counseling
Dan L. Rogers
Bradnee is not and has not ever been a 'professor.' Besides,
you make the same sort of logical and grammatical mistakes
as Bradnee. You are probably he.
an60...@anon.penet.fi (anon.) wrote:
>Dear Mr. Bernhardt:
> As I say in a thread below, I am astonished at your disrespect of Prof.
>Jesness. I am also dismayed. I cannot help but believe that , as Jesness
>himself says, you are trying to inappropriately discredit him.
Nobody discredits Bradnee. Any individual who (even like you) uses
anonymous posting to launch a flame, and anybody like Bradnee who
hasn't even a shred of courtesy, or any person who answers his own posts
average of at least six times a day, richly discredits him or herself.
Go away.
Dan L. Rogers
Hope I don't respond out-of-thread, but I have a good killfile going
so I don't see any of the spew from Bradnee.
He has, over the past many months, never really revealed his own
credentials. Instead, he simply says, over and over, that he has.
He usually does this in the same acrid breath in which he demands
the credentials of others and simultaneously attacks them for talking
about them at all.
However, his credentials have been researched and revealed by others.
He lives in Minneapolis. He has never had a real academic position,
but instead has occasionally taught some courses on a parttime basis.
I believe he is teaching one such course now. Nor has he ever held
a true research position.
It is for those reasons that his literature references include only
oldies but goodies. For example, he recently said something vapid
about research on negative outcomes, but he was obviously unaware of
the recent, major review in J of Clinical.
He can't share his credentials. Ain't got any.
Cognito2
Dear Dan Rogers,
I do not recall ever demanding others' credentials. I have supplied
mine as much as possible without driving over to show people the
official paperwork. AND: Twice now, I have been a full time,
permanent-track psychology instructor. I AM ALSO A COUNSELING
INSTRUCTOR, familiar with the content of major texts in the area.
I read MANY recent studies and articles and reviews (and review them
AND SUPPLY THE REVIEWS TO THE NEWSGROUP !!). I have reviewed, the CR
survey and Seligman's essay on it, I have reviewed the Stein and Lambert
meta-analysis, the Anderson and Lambert meta-analysis, the Woods and
Lyons meta-analysis. I have tracked done an read 4 *other* citations
provided by John Grohol and reviewed them. I have read many other
things and provided citations and principles from findings FOR VIRTUALLY
EVERYTHING I'VE EVER SAID. I've done my own reviews of the literature
(reading many articles on predicting counselor effectiveness) and have
done some counseling research myself !!!
Now aren't you again putting YOURSELF to shame in another
inapropriate and false attempt to discredit me !!. Dan, it must be so
hard on 'old you ! -- b jesness
Dan L. Rogers
This is great! I was changing my killfile (also known as a Brad scoop)
and I saw your reply. (I have otherwise been blessed with a
Bradnee-free usenet. What a blessing!)
Cognito2 <Cogn...@aol.com> wrote:
>Dear Dan Rogers
> Is it not enough just to insult me; must you accuse others of being
>me and insult them ?? (snip) b jesness
You are finally correct on something, that it was an insult to say that
someone is Bradnee. (You stepped in your own doo!)
Cognito2
Dear Dan Rogers
Is it not enough just to insult me; must you accuse others of being
doubt be accused of being BRAD (though in a sense he may be). This has
happened twice already anyway for those that are curious. Those
individuals have been driven off for a long time now. One nice fellow
even referred to himself as the BRADvocate. -- b jesness
Cognito2
Yes, Folks, FOR THE RECORD: DAN ROGER **IS** A PSYCHOTHERAPIST. See
what you can get !!! He has even held some political post and has been
some sort or low-level "leader" in the field. He even sat behind a good
man, Carl Rogers once, according to his account. Unfortunately, this
man is nothing like the others Rogers, nor do I expect most other
"therapists" are. Dan Rogers responses have rarely been befitting a
wise OR considerate helper. Like so many, he is just a "psycho"-
therapissed.
David
In article <4nf5a9$6...@stratus.skypoint.net>, Cognito2 <Cogn...@aol.com>
wrote:
>wise OR considerate helper. Like so many, he is just a "psycho"-
>therapissed.
i will be so elated when this group becomes moderated and the likes of you
will never see the light of day.
Mike Rael
My goodness, Professor Anonymous,
I quite agree with you. Professor Jesness is a man of high
repute, a learned fellow, with a good head of hair and a manly, youthful
bearing.
Why, he even makes me think of our own President:) Clinton has
this problem with telling the truth, I believe...
best wishes,
Mike
anon. (an60...@anon.penet.fi) wrote:
: Dear Mr. Bernhardt:
: As I say in a thread below, I am astonished at your disrespect of Prof.
: Jesness. I am also dismayed. I cannot help but believe that , as Jesness
: himself says, you are trying to inappropriately discredit him. I also
: think that you are doing so, and misrepresenting Jesness, because you do
: not like and cannot face the critical content he raises for discussion. I
: think your response is shameful. It is inappropreately defensive and
: hostile. Jesness is a well-credentialed individual who has been a
: valuable participant. It now seems he is phasing out his participation.
: Others, with other professional forums for communication, will likely
: think twice about participating here, given the treatment Professor
: Jesness has received. anon., as recommended
: In article <Paul.Bernhardt-...@news.cc.utah.edu>,
: Paul.Be...@m.cc.utah.edu (Paul Bernhardt) wrote:
: > Unfortunately Brad, you are not educated (as evidenced by your out of date
: > references, your lack of awareness of the Handbook of Clinical Psychology,
: > your lack of understanding of basic statistical concepts such as effect
: > sizes and statistical significance.... etc.). Your opinions are not well
: > reasoned, they ramble and are at times incoherent. Your use of language is
: > sometimes so poor that any reasoning that might be within the writing is
: > effectively burried. I can't know if you are principled in your posts on
: > psychotherapy. But based on your machinegun style of posting (throw out
: > everything everywhere in all threads) you are not principled in your use
: > of the internet. That is objectionable and casts as shadow over any
: > principles you may have in your objections to psychotherapy.
: >
: [snip]
: > +=============================================================+
: > Paul C. Bernhardt, M.S. in Psychology, University of Utah
: > PhD graduate student in Educational Psychology
: > +=============================================================+
michae...@delphi.com
A comment on this whole thread: so much energy and time spent on such
insipid issues. What a waste! Fortunately, the entire newsgroup
is not yet this inane.