NEWSFLASH: It's 2 p.m. On my way ...
Cognitee
I am leaving right now with the formal complaint to the Bureau of
Professional Licensure, Dept. of Public Health, State of Iowa. The
complaint states that Dan Rogers *falsely and groundless accuses an
academic of plagiarism* and that he does so *maliciously* *to do harm*,
*while fabricating false details*. I also inform them that Dan *refused to
provide personal information or in any way to cooperate with the Complaint
process*. Further, it was made clear that Dan was well-informed of how
else this conflict may have been resolved, but declined.
I have expressed a willingness to appear at a hearing. There I will also
present information there on the 2 other times I could have filed a formal
ethical complaint against Dan Rogers of Ft. Dodge Iowa. The Complaint is
being sent certified mail, marked NOT to be opened or handled by Dan
Rogers (in case he is on the Board).
--
See my much praised critique of the clinical psychology field at:
http://www.future.net/~bradj/it.html (well-regarded by Mahrer, Ivey, Izard, and other distinguished professors)
Also see my great web resource, the BEST Meta-Index for Psychiatry and clinical Psychology at:
Cognitee
I can now report that it is in the mail. I'll be damned if someone is
going to falsely accuse me of plagiarism. One knows what one has done and
what one has not done. I thus am confident. I might be accused of not
providing a bibliography, but all sources of specific information were
cited in the body of the paper; all else is my ideas, calculations,
observations, or is common knowledge. Nothing whatsoever was "stolen",
which is clearly the meaning of plagiarism. Odd that Dan's pride is so
strong he can't admit such a grave error or that his judgment is so
impaired. Perhaps he has psychopathic tendencies (a possibility outlined
by a hypothesis in one of my ORIGINAL essays); I believe this to be a
grave problem and danger with "therapists".
This group may need some reality orientation. You may be content or
"comfortable" with the "norms" established here, but the rest of the world
is not. It is not okay to victimize the prevailing "enemy" (esp. when
unethical conduct and/or illegalities are involved -- GROW UP !!) I shall
not again "take it on the chin" so you thugs can be "happy". Twice I have
done so already.
Unless Dan Rogers is the HEAD of the Dept. of Public Health, Bureau of
Professional Licensure, he shall NOT be handling the complaint.
In article <good_brad-150...@ts004d18.min-mn.concentric.net>,
Alan
Fiona writes:
> Alan writes:
>> With regard to the degree of damage done by Rogers' accusation,
>> you need to establish that people are likely to believe it.
>
> A viewing of the movie "The People vs. Larry Flynt" might
> be helpful in this regard.
I haven't seen the movie, but I've read a book about Jerry Falwell's
lawsuit against him. (For lurkers, the lawsuit concerned an ad parody
in which Falwell is portrayed as endorsing the alcoholic beverage
Campari. The ad contains a fictional interview in which Falwell
states that his first sexual experience was with his mother in an
outhouse--while drunk on Campari, of course. The interview closes
with Falwell stating he always drinks Campari before appearing on
the pulpit: "You don't think I could lay that bullshit on sober,
do you?") The jury found that the ad was recognizably fictional and
awarded no libel damages, but did award damages for inflicting
emotional distress. Fortunately for Brad, the appeals court ruled
that inflicting emotional distress was protected by the First Amendment.
The high point (or perhaps the nadir) of the case came during the
deposition of Larry Flynt. In response to a question by Grutman,
Flynt says, "Funk you!" and proceeds to pick his nose. So Grutman
goes, "Let the record show that the deponent has deposited at his
bedside a piece of mucus which he removed from his nose, where it
had coagulated."
A good trial attorney is never at a loss for words.
- Alan
Alan
> Hell, I could walk into the hearing tomorrow, no trouble, with virtually
> no further preparation.
I'm glad to hear you are ready. I'm sure that your conduct of this
case will be fodder for a lot of interesting discussions here and in
alt.usenet.kooks. I am eager to learn how things turn out.
> I'm no lawyer, but I know that much of what you
> mention (below) is absolutely irrelevant to the charge -- and so will the
> Board.
Exactly. That's why I suggested that when the board members display
a normal human reaction to it, you don't invalidate the feelings.
Instead, you should acknowledge the appropriateness of their feelings
and then direct their attention back to the matter at hand. Since you
are interested in psychotherapy I'm sure you understand this technique.
The only reason I called your attention to it is that I have noticed
a certain amount of personal emotional involvement in your postings,
almost as though you were trying to attack Dan personally rather than
to maintain the accademic standards of this newsgroup. I wouldn't want
your emotions to impair your judgement.
- Alan
Cognitee
A review of the deja records would show that I corrected Dan on his
knowledge a number of times (e.g. about Piaget and about statistics) and I
corrected others too. It is I who is maintaining some academic standards
and doing all the significant critical thinking here also.
Dan is not even maintaining moral standards. This is why I e-mailed his
Psychology Board and asked them to tell Dan to quit talking about my
"dick". If he continues in any way like this, out of a sense of urgency,
I shall have to send them his e-mail address. Dan has not been showing
adequete regard for me and has brought a serious TOTALLY unfounded charge
against me, someone who typically makes his living as a college
instructor. If I experience clear damages, Dan can also expect a civil
law suit for libel (and so can Nancy Alvarado),
In article <1998061718470...@nym.alias.net>, Alan
<a...@nym.alias.net> wrote:
--
Anonymous
Cognitee writes
>A review of the deja records would show that I corrected Dan on his
>knowledge a number of times (e.g. about Piaget and about statistics) and I
>corrected others too. It is I who is maintaining some academic standards
>and doing all the significant critical thinking here also.
Surely you are not delusional? You seem to be saying that only you
are holding to these standards.
As a counsellor you must surely have good reality testing. When you sit
back, at the end of the day, and consider
these comments of yours, do you believe what you have said above?
>Dan is not even maintaining moral standards.
Neither was calling Doctor Packer a child killer. Neither were your
references to
David Rixon. Neither was your stalking. Neither was your soliciting
clients in support
groups. Neither was your behavior to a manic depressive. Neither was
your behavior to a
client in spm.
That is correct. I have been to Peter Hoods website, and so have other
subscribers.
It is truly amazing.
>This is why I e-mailed his
>Psychology Board and asked them to tell Dan to quit talking about my
>"dick".
For the record Cognitee, it is in the archives that you said you have no
->dick<-. On three
occasions.
If you said so on three occasions, what are others supposed to make of
these iterations?
What would you say if one of your oppenonts made such a comment? Would
you (a) ignore it? (b) make use of it?
(More comments further down)
Subject: Want to become "dickless" ?
From: iknow...@aol.com (IKnowUDont)
Date: 1996/07/31
Message-ID: <4to04p$2...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
Newsgroups: sci.psychology.misc
[More Headers]
[Subscribe to sci.psychology.misc]
> Try tangling with the head "lady" (or if you like: wench or shrew)
>that's lording in sci.psychology.psychotherapy.
> She made BRAD dickless (YES HE NOW HAS NO DICK) . Oh, so mighty a
>force and status this is! I encourage all to behold, but beware. Don't
>cross her.
[SNIP]
>bring them*. Don't bring that up or she will emascualte you. I witnessed
>it.
[SNIP]
> ....OH, unless you like the challenge.
Subject: Want to become "DICKLESS" ?
From: iknow...@aol.com (IKnowUDont)
Date: 1996/07/31
Message-ID: <4tnugk$1...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
Newsgroups: sci.psychology.personality
[More Headers]
[Subscribe to sci.psychology.personality]
> Try tangling with the head "lady" (or if you like: wench or shrew)
>that's lording in sci.psychology.psychotherapy.
> She made BRAD dickless (YES HE NOW HAS NO DICK) . Oh, so mighty a
>force and status this is! I encourage all to behold, but beware. Don't
>cross her.
[SNIP]
>bring them*. Don't bring that up or she will emascualte you. I witnessed
>it.
[SNIP]
> ....OH, unless you like the challenge.
Subject: Want to become *DICKLESS*
From: iknow...@aol.com (IKnowUDont)
Date: 1996/07/31
Message-ID: <4tnul4$1...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
Newsgroups: sci.psychology.theory
[More Headers]
[Subscribe to sci.psychology.theory]
> Try tangling with the head "lady" (or if you like: wench or shrew)
>that's lording in sci.psychology.psychotherapy.
> She made BRAD dickless (YES HE NOW HAS NO DICK) . Oh, so mighty a
>force and status this is! I encourage all to behold, but beware. Don't
>cross her.
[SNIP]
>bring them*. Don't bring that up or she will emascualte you. I witnessed
>it.
[SNIP]
> ....OH, unless you like the challenge.
>If he continues in any way like this, out of a sense of urgency,
>I shall have to send them his e-mail address.
I expect that he will go to the archives and fetch your abusive posts
about him
How would you feel about that? Remember what Alan has said to you. I
have left it in for you, at the end of my post.
Cognitee
Unfounded charges from an anonymous poster have often been said to mean nothing.
In article <6m9dut$jvq$1...@basement.replay.com>, nob...@REPLAY.COM
(Anonymous) wrote:
--
Cognitee
I have answered the charges. My answer was: They cited no evidence (not
even the names of those well-known people I have supposedly plagiarized --
it is claimed these people are so important that, although there works are
said to be 20-30 years old, all well-educated people in the field should
know of them and their works !!!!!). Yet we have not even heard the
names !!!!!!!!!!!!
My response is and shall be:
"Where's the BEEF ??" No evidence. No case (against me).
There is a big case of unethical conduct (according to the APA guidelines)
against ***them*** !!!!
In article <6m9i11$qpc$1...@basement.replay.com>, nob...@REPLAY.COM
(Anonymous) wrote:
> Cognitee writes
> >Unfounded charges from an anonymous poster have often been said to mean
> >nothing.
>
> Whilst this has been said it is not always the case. There are people
> who post anonymously wishing not to be
> involved in this street brawl. I am passing through and uncomfortable
> with what you do.
>
> I will never disclose my name. The things I have heard in email convince
> me this is wise.
>
> The charges have been stated by posters that are not anonymous. You have
> not answered them, and there is **good** evidence
> to substantiate what they say.
>
> You failed to answer my questions though.
>
> Do you really believe those
> comments you made, that you are the one maintaining standards and others
> are not? Do you really in front
> of thousands of people state that you **believe** you are the only
> one, at the end of the day, when you sit down
> and relax?
>
> Your statements about your ->dick<- were not made anonymously and
> are in the archives.
> These are substantiated. You failed to answer that question
> too. What would you have done with such
> information if one of your opponents had posted it?
> If Dan Rogers had? If Peter Hood had?
>
> You did not answer my point that Dan Rogers will likely go to the
> archives, and Alan's point concerning the boards
> reaction to them and your reaction to that. You have a lot of
> emotional investment in what is plainly an
> inconsequential matter, one which is below someone of your status
> what am I and others to make of this?
>
> I have another client to see, and will say goodbye for now.
>
>
> Good bye for now.
Anonymous
Cognitee writes
>Unfounded charges from an anonymous poster have often been said to mean
>nothing.
Whilst this has been said it is not always the case. There are people
Good bye for now.
>In article <6m9dut$jvq$1...@basement.replay.com>, nob...@REPLAY.COM
Anonymous
Brad writes:
/snip/
>Dan is not even maintaining moral standards. This is why I e-mailed his
>Psychology Board and asked them to tell Dan to quit talking about my
>"dick".
I am having a bit of difficulty imagining you writing to a state board
of psychology about your dick, but perhaps you found a way to handle
it professionally?
Did you remember to sign your e-mail to about your dick with "Brad
Jesness, M.A., Psychology and Counseling Instructor, APA Member
(Assoc.), APS member." ?
>If he continues in any way like this, out of a sense of urgency,
>I shall have to send them his e-mail address.
If that fails, send them an attachment of your absent dick. That
should do it.
/snip/
Anonymous
Cognitee, you have not answered the charges that I REFERRED TO. Kindly
read my letter again. You will see
that you ignored a number of points. In particular, I referred to the
evidence at Peter's website showing that you
are Mr L Fredsen, that you sought a girlfriend from a client population,
and that you responded heartlessly to a desperate
patient threatening suicide. Peter puts forward 13 items showing that
you are Mr L Fredsen. You have NOT answered
these charges. Will you NOW ANSWER them? Will you refute the 13 points
that he has made?
NEXT, you failed to respond to my point concerning your lost ->dick<-.
That is, you posted 3 times that you had lost
your penis. To 3 newsgroups in the sci. hierarchy. If Dan Rogers or
Peter Hood had done such a thing would
you have used this against them?
NEXT, do you really believe at the end of the day, when you sit down and
relax, that you are the only one maintaining
standards in the ng? Are you the only one that is correct?
NEXT, you failed to answer my point that Dan Rogers will likely go to
the archives and collect all of the
abusive posts that you have made about him. You also overlook comments
re. what the Board will say to you when they
see them, and how you will handle this.
PLEASE READ MY REMARKS. THEY ARE IN THE POST AND YOU ARE NOT ANSWERING
THEM.
Thank you.
Cognitee <good...@hotmail.com> writes
Anonymous
Silke-Maria Weineck <wein...@mail1.sas.upenn.edu> writes
>Anonymous (nob...@REPLAY.COM) wrote:
>: Cognitee, you have not answered the charges that I REFERRED TO. Kindly
>: read my letter again. You will see
>: that you ignored a number of points. In particular, I referred to the
>: evidence at Peter's website showing that you
>: are Mr L Fredsen, that you sought a girlfriend from a client population,
>: and that you responded heartlessly to a desperate
>: patient threatening suicide. Peter puts forward 13 items showing that
>: you are Mr L Fredsen. You have NOT answered
>: these charges. Will you NOW ANSWER them? Will you refute the 13 points
>: that he has made?
>
>guttersnipe at work. Why would anyone feel inclined to answer your
>questions?
>
>smw
Oh please. This is surely no place to play victims and rescuers is it?
Well, maybe it is.
Few words in response your riposte containing analogy departing from the
matter at hand. Instead more exotic
analogies for your to consider, in your role as rescuer. Samizdat.
Wroclaw and the sewers. Eating rats during sieges.
I will say goodbye now.
Goodbye now.
-