Brad Jesness (Cognitee) FAQ v1.22
Anonymous
Brad Jesness FAQ -- Version 1.22
----------------------------------
Now being maintained by anonymous
December 11, 1996
A FAQ about an individual is a controversial thing. Some will be glad to
see this posting because of Brad Jesness's intrusion into the various
psychology groups. Others will argue this is against common netiquette. In
order to walk the fine ethical line, this FAQ will only include factual
information and clearly identified opinions about this individual.
This FAQ is both appropriate and necessary.
Brad Jesness argues from a position of authority. In other
words, he suggests that he is learned and respected in this field,
describing himself as a "behavioral scientist, recognized world-wide,
ethologist, and developmental psychologist" Therefore, things about a
poster that normally would be irrelevant become relevant. Hence the first
section on this FAQ is on Brad's background. Brad argues that anonymity is
his right. It is to a certain extent, but Usenet is inherently public.
Therefore anyone posting is placing himself effectively on a soapbox in
town square. Finally, nothing has been done in researching Brad's
background which is outside public records. Anyone with basic internet
connections or a telephone could collect the information herein without
crossing any privacy boundaries.
If you are new to this newsgroup, it is imperative you read this FAQ
and understand the reinforcement schedule you are putting Brad on if
you engage him in debate. Random reinforcement is the strongest kind.
Also be prepared for denigrating insults, threats, harassment, sexism, etc.
FAQ contents:
1) Who (or What!) is Brad Jesness?
a) Background
i) Living Situation
ii) Education
iii) Publications
b) Aliases
2) What does Brad post?
3) How does Brad post?
a) General
b) BRAD the "organization"
4) Where does Brad post?
5) Why we avoid Brad Jesness
1. WHO (OR WHAT!) IS BRADLEY JESNESS?
a) Background.
i) Living Situation: Normally living situation wouldn't be fair game but
Brad has been known to threaten people. Therefore, knowing where he lives
might clarify his circle of influence. This might be important to know for
nearby residents.
Brad Jesness lives in Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA. He alleges
he teaches and has taught psychology undergraduate classes at various
colleges in North Dakota and Minnesota. Only one college (in Minnesota)
has confirmed that he used to teach there for a short time. He apparently
has a wife and lives in a single-family home.
From the phone book: Jesness, Bradley and Renee
5612 Harriet Ave.
Minneapolis, MN
(612) 866-8050
ii) Education
Normally education and publications wouldn't be fair game. However, Brad
argues from his position of authority meaning the basis for his authority
becomes a fair subject for examination.
Brad Jesness alleges he has studied psychology for many decades. According
to the APA records (which are supplied to the APA by Brad) Brad has a
Master of Arts degree in Educational Psychology from the University of
Iowa granted in 1985. Brad also states he has a second 'science' degree.
For this degree he has not provided any details.
iii) Publications
Brad Jesness has only three publications of any kind. Two are on the
subject of ethology and are published in the ERIC system (an educational
resource system distributed by microfilm to college libraries). ERIC does
not use a peer review process and accepts most any submission. That means
that other established researchers in the field have not examined the
submissions for valid and well reasoned content. The third publication he
alleges is a letter to the editor of _Ethology_and_Sociobiology_
commenting on the applicability of ethology to a previously published
article. Brad has not given a complete citation so that it can be found
and read.
Furthermore, no evidence for a thesis has been found. Brad has no other
publications in any area of scholarly thought or research, and certainly
no peer reviewed publications (the gold standard for scholarly
credentials).
Most importantly, Bradley Jesness HAS NEVER PUBLISHED ANY RESEARCH
whatsoever. He has done not a single study, nor has he ever lifted
a finger to conduct a research study of any sort. This is an
important point because he constantly argues that X research
should be done in psychology. It's easy to criticize a field as
broad as psychology without having paid your dues to understand
the difficulties involved in conducting good, and yet generalizable
research.
b) Aliases. Brad Jesness posts from many aliases (alternative internet
accounts and identities). Hence he has been dubbed "MultiBrad" and
"Bradnee." Many times these identities respond to previous Brad Jesness
posts inflating apparent support for his ideas.
His current real e-mail address is: br...@future.net
Brad has posted under the following identities:
Cogn...@aol.com, Cogn...@aol.com, pwi...@aol.com, livi...@aol.com
B1R2...@aol.com, br...@future.net, je...@future.net,
br...@future.net, br...@imt.net, psyc...@aol.com, inco...@aol.com,
E1C...@aol.com, unkn...@aol.com. Variations on the name: DAssman (a
man from Canada made famous by David Letterman)
Brad also posts using anonymous servers (only anon.penet.fi so far).
Known anonymous numbers for Brad are: an57...@anon.penet.fi,
an60...@anon.penet.fi. (these have various pseudonyms attached, but the
an#### is always the same). Brad uses the anonymous server at Twills
now for a return address at: anon-...@anon.twwells.com
since penet.fi went down.
It should be noted that Brad doesn't actually go through the anonymous
servers to post, he simply puts his assigned ID number into his Web
browser software's (Netscape on a Mac) configuration options. He has
used this silly trick to create any name he wants to on the fly, and
to make it seem like there are more people agreeing with than there
really is. A simple look at a message header, though, will always
indicate a message from Brad as being posted from "future.net"
or "skypoint.net."
A separate FAQ is available listing all of Brad's aliases (dozens).
He is now posting and has accounts at USInternet.com and Concentric.Net.
E-mail complaints to: ab...@aol.com
postm...@future.net
postm...@skypoint.net
postm...@cris.com
postm...@usinternet.com, sup...@usinternet.com
Always include his real name (Brad Jesness) in any complaint
and his real e-mail address: br...@future.net
2) WHAT DOES BRAD POST?
The content of Brad Jesness's posts are not really an important issue per
se. He has the right to the opinions he expresses and his opinions are not
too bizarre, though they are generally not supported by the relevant
literature. In terms of content, Brad's posts are innocuous. However,
considering he posts from a alleged position of authority, naive persons
might take him seriously which could inappropriately affect their
perceptions of therapy.
Brad posts on several subjects. His main thrust is that peer counselors
(which he has frequently described as 'well adjusted' friends) are as
effective as Ph.D. psychologists in therapy on common issues which clients
take into therapy. He argues that Ph.D. therapists are not any more
effective in helping and that they are lacking in ethics. It is not clear
what problems are so trivial for Ph.D. therapists that they should be left
to peer counselors. He cites studies which are nearly 2 decades old for
evidence that peer counselors are as effective as Ph.D. counselors. He
doesn't account for the lack of support for this position in the
literature since the old study and tries to argue that current efficacy
studies support his position. However, persons with adequate understanding
of statistics know these studies are not supportive of Brad's position. He
makes broad assertions about Ph.D. therapists about lack of ethics.
Basically he feels that Ph.D. therapists routinely misinform clients as to
the potential efficacy of treatment. He cites no studies which justify
this position.
Brad also has posted that he feels therapists are generally not effective.
However, he has recently softened this stance and may have changed his
mind.
Brad has stated that there is poor interrater reliability in diagnosis.
(That is to say, two therapists are unlikely to come up with the same
diagnosis for a given individual.) He feels the DSM-IV is unjustified and
had little to no basis in research for the various classifications listed
therein.
Brad has proposed various studies (which he says he is not in a position
to conduct for himself, or in collaboration) which would expound on the
issues he raises. However, these studies have great problems with ethics
of research, according to the consensus of others who have examined Brad's
proposals. Primarily, Brad wants to use experimental treatment methods on
persons who are not informed of that situation. He also wants to offer
less than state of the art therapy (through paraprofessional
practitioners) to persons suffering from serious mental illnesses. Both of
these situations would be serious violations of many ethical guidelines
for research as well as some laws.
Finally, Brad has recently began to assail the APA (American Psychological
Association) as an organization which has a vested interest in not
promoting any middle level mental health options. Middle level options
being those that are between self-help books and full fledged therapy.
This is connected to his promotion of paraprofessional therapists, but is
phrased more as an attack on the APA in Brad's current writings. To quote:
"I shall see the ApA in
ruins. I pledge to the death. -- b. jesness."
3) HOW DOES BRAD POST?
a) General
Brad posts using varying styles. Early on in his posting history (starting
in the middle of 1995) he challenged the psychotherapy community directly
with wording such as: Defend yourself if you can! That was the period
where Brad insisted that therapy was not effective.
A typical current Brad-started thread goes like this: 1) Lengthy post 90%
of which has previously been seen in a Brad-manifesto addressing an issue
of efficacy. The content is generally well organized if lacking in detail
and filled with hyperbole. 2) A naive or persistent Brad-antagonist posts
a response to his major points. 3) Brad generally attacks the response
saying that it doesn't provide enough citations, misses the points that
Brad made, and is generally insufficient. 4) The antagonist responds with
citations and clarification of the applicability to Brad's points. 5) Brad
then replies saying the citations and clarifications are not adequate.
Steps 4 and 5 are continued until the antagonist tires of the game. ***The
game is that no response to Brad is ever adequate. Any standard Brad sets
for adequate response is moved higher as soon as a person attains it.***
It is not clear why Brad won't allow others to be correct. Variations on
the theme are when Brad recognizes he is losing an argument, he begins to
attack the antagonist directly usually deriding the antagonists
credentials.
Brad's style is to be a prevaricator. He avoids factual information which
might dilute his argument. He simply states that the information is
somehow inherently flawed and/or in no way addresses the information. That
is an avoidance of truth. This behavior is inconsistent with Brad's
self-promoted view of himself as a scientist. A scientist welcomes
arguments against his favored view. These arguments provide the scientist
with direction for future research. This indicates Brad doesn't actually
think like a scientist.
Brad has expressed a fair level of paranoid ideas in his postings. He
apparently believes that the Internet is an instantaneous and infallible
system. He believes that persons have removed his messages from newsgroups
when messages are lost by his newsreader. He has also become dismayed by
the appearance of 'buttons' on his messages.
Brad tends to use sentences with very complex, possibly unparsable,
structures. His use of commas is infrequent and leads to great confusion.
Brad also tends to use all capitals when he is expressing anger or
frustration with a respondant's post. Brad also has several unique word
usages that serve as signatures for his posts. Brad-isms are as follows:
"Many are BRAD", "represent the status quo", "basic foundational
research", "lacking as a science", "intentionally
provocative" "shitty ass."
b) BRAD/Client Advocates
Brad Jesness alleges the existence of an organization called Bad Rap for
therapists And Deserved: BRAD. (What is interesting to this author is the
convolution of the anagram to make it match his name.) There is no
evidence for this organization. The only posters to ever claim BRAD
membership are known aliases for Jesness. There are no publically filed
papers, independent confirmations, or other evidence for such an
organization.
Brad frequently posts a manifesto for the organization stating it is a
client support organization which intends to show therapists are
unethical, overpriced, and ineffective. He has apparently since
changed the name of this organization to "Client Advocates."
It remains a ghost organization with no membership outside of
Brad.
4) WHERE DOES BRAD POST?
Brad Jesness tends to concentrate posts to the various psychology
newsgroups on the internet. However, he has also included sci.med, and
other remotely related newsgroups in his efforts.
A problem with where Brad posts is he is a chronic cross-poster. That means
he posts a thread, or expands the posting of a thread, to many other
newsgroups. The general rule of thumb on Usenet is posting a thread to
more than 20 newsgroups is spam (a bad thing). Brad generally stays under
this number. However, his compliance is not in the spirit of the rule. He
crossposts his manifestos, daily at times over the past few months, to a
large number newsgroups.
5) WHY WE AVOID AND/OR COUNTER BRAD?
Many longtime posters and readers of the psychology newsgroups avoid Brad,
others counter him. Some people counter him
now because there is no real discourse with him because he is a crank. They
also counter him because he poisons the well of information on psychology
newsgroups. Naive persons who happen by looking for guidance will find at
times 75% Brad content which says that psychotherapy is a complete loss.
Therefore, a reason for this FAQ is to combat that problem without
engaging Brad directly. Finally people counter Brad because he is a fraud. He
claims to be a scientist but there is no evidence for it. He claims the
need for studies and his position at a college, but he can't seem to plan
and execute a research study in that position.
Cognitee
Just for the record,
I have responded to basically this same "FAQ" from a Paul Bernhardt. I
believe he is likely the author (or much is "borrowed" from him). I don't
know whether to read it all again and re-write my response to its lies and
mischaracterizations, or simply do a search for my last such response.
Well, let me go back and read this damned thing again....
...Ok I have read it. I have 5 publications, not three. The complete
citation for the Ethology and Sociobiology essay HAS been given. I have
done research, not only as a research assistant, but my own research. I
have developed, for example, a special scoring system for the CPI to be
used as a tool in selecting good candidates for peer counselors (AND I
HAVE SAID SO MANY TIMES AND I HAVE OFFERED TO MAKE THIS SYSTEM AVAILABLE
to those who have legitimate uses for it). I developed and normed and did
pilot validation work on this tool.
I have had a number of screen names; these ARE not aliases. Over 90%
of the time I have been Cognitee *OR* I have signed my posts. My screen
name changes were do to the need to change e-mail addresses due to mail
bombings (4 times), due to moves, and due to changing service providers.
I have been appropriately anonymous sometimes (as is my right). I have
never pretended to be another person or more than one person. Some of the
screen names listed as mine are not me or are friends of mine. The
address I presently use does work and is THROUGH ANON.PENET.FI.
My positions in my "Ans. to FAQ: Info. and Precaustions..." posts are
supported by the research literature OR the lack thereof (where I claim
such). This has been affirmed by no less a figure than Allen Ivey. I
provide readers a valid perspective on psycho"therapy". Some of the
so-called "old studies" I cite are the latest controlled studies DONE !!
(e.g. Strupp and Hadley, 1979). Examples of "therapists" misrepresenting
the field have been pointed out as they have occurred in this newsgroup
(and these are not rare instances).
I do believe in diagnoses or behavioral classification very much, but
research shows the inter-rater reliabilities for present diagnoses to be
less than they should be. AND: Diagnoses (or behavioral
classifications) have been improving very little over the years due to
deficiencies in research and good practice in the clinical field.
I have clearly argued how the studies I propose are no less ethical
than the studies now done using waitlist or placebo control groups. This
has never been cogently disputed BY ANYONE, *INCLUDING* MARTIN SELIGMAN
(with whom I had a debate). ONE thing the research I propose MIGHT end up
justifying a larger range of mental health helper roles, something
"therapists" apparently want to avoid at all costs (even at the cost of
low care for clients !!). I have always said that all helpers would have
to be well-selected and appropriately trained (by the way, the idea of lay
counselors was supported by no less a figure than Carl Rogers himself).
The research I propose is very important for other reasons: to find out
where new treatments most need to be developed and where highly
specialized care is most needed.
I have never derailed an argument by bringing up a "credentials
issues". This is a tactic of my opponents. My opponents also tend to
derail arguments by talking about irrelevant points of one study or other
WHICH ARE *not* germane to the main issue at all. I welcome all
arguments, like a good scientist. Those that oppose me are in favor of
"moderation", with some admitting it is really just to get rid of me.
This shows that many here cannot cope like scientists, but seek other
"special means" of protection/defense.
Client Advocates has many members. Included is a head of a university
counseling department and more than a half dozen top clinical Ph.D.s They
have all stated that the support the tenets of the Client Advocates
manifesto and do work to promote those tenets. I do not publish member
names in the newsgroup, or provide these names to non-members. It is only
important that the Client Advocate members know about each other and work
together or specialize as appropriate.
This "FAQ" contains information which clearly has abuse of me as its
intent. The misinformation is libelous.
In article <5gua27$g...@basement.replay.com>, nob...@REPLAY.COM (Anonymous)
wrote:
Cognitee
Let me provide an editorial correction and one elaboration. First the
correction. I said: "ONE thing the research I propose MIGHT end up
justifying a larger range of mental health helper roles, something
"therapists" apparently want to avoid at all costs (even at the cost of
low care for clients !!). "
larger range of mental health helper roles, something "therapists"
apparently want to avoid at all costs (even at the cost of low care for
clients !!)."
"The research I propose is very important for other reasons: to find out
where new treatments most need to be developed and where highly
the research I propose is NECESSARY for the purpose of discovering where
highly trained professionals are most needed and where new more elaborate
treatments are needed (as well as where these things are less
necessary). This makes the research essential, whether it ends up
justifying a larger range of mental heal helper roles or not !!!
Unfortunately, it appears "therapists" would rather deprive both science
and clients to retain their "turf ." The clinical psychology guild lobby
, the APA, has done a good job getting clinical psychologists political
power through laws -- this is largely what many laws are about.
Unfortunately, it does not promote needed science or any true
science-practitioner role.
In article <xx571479-210...@cnc047216.concentric.net>,
xx57...@anon.penet.fi (Cognitee) wrote:
> Just for the record,
> I have responded to basically this same "FAQ" from a Paul Bernhardt. I
> believe he is likely the author (or much is "borrowed" from him). I don't
> know whether to read it all again and re-write my response to its lies and
> mischaracterizations, or simply do a search for my last such response.
> Well, let me go back and read this damned thing again....
[snip]
[snip]
Cognitee
I am sorry, but I shall provide no personal information about "Anonymous",
the author of the post (quoted below), other than to say a similar post
has been made in the past by one Paul Bernhardt, frequent poster to
sci.psychology.psychotherapy. I will not stoop to such irrelevancies or
abusive ways.
I apologize to all for "Anonymous" intruding into your newsgroup for no
good reason whatsoever. Maybe he wants to encourage you to join us all in
sci.psychology.psychotherapy. This is where they are finding me such a
"problem."
I shall subsequently delete alt.support.attn-deficit from any
distributionm list of my follow-up posts to "Anonymous". Hopefully
"Anonymous" will not intrude any more either. regards, b j
In article <5gua27$g...@basement.replay.com>, nob...@REPLAY.COM (Anonymous)
wrote:
> Brad Jesness FAQ -- Version 1.22
Squeaky
In article <5gua27$g...@basement.replay.com>, Anonymous
<nob...@REPLAY.COM> writes
>Newsgroups: sci.psychology.psychotherapy,sci.psychology.misc,alt.support.attn-
>deficit,alt.support
LOL.
--
Squeaky
Joe Parsons
Mr. Jesness:
It would have been a LOT easier to accept at face value your apology for
crossposting your responses to this post to alt.support.attn-deficit if
you were not continuing to send your responses here.
Please edit your newsgroups line. We have more than enough distractions
in that newsgroup.
Thank you in advance for your anticipated courtesy.
Joe Parsons
alt.support.attn-deficit
On Fri, 21 Mar 1997 21:12:26 -0600, xx57...@anon.penet.fi (Cognitee)
wrote:
>Let me provide an editorial correction and one elaboration. First the
>correction. I said: "ONE thing the research I propose MIGHT end up
>justifying a larger range of mental health helper roles, something
>"therapists" apparently want to avoid at all costs (even at the cost of
>low care for clients !!). "
>Let this read: " ONE thing the research I propose MIGHT do is justify a
>larger range of mental health helper roles, something "therapists"
>apparently want to avoid at all costs (even at the cost of low care for
>clients !!)."
> I also said:
>"The research I propose is very important for other reasons: to find out
>where new treatments most need to be developed and where highly
>specialized care is most needed." Indeed I could go further and say that
>the research I propose is NECESSARY for the purpose of discovering where
>highly trained professionals are most needed and where new more elaborate
>treatments are needed (as well as where these things are less
>necessary). This makes the research essential, whether it ends up
>justifying a larger range of mental heal helper roles or not !!!
>Unfortunately, it appears "therapists" would rather deprive both science
>and clients to retain their "turf ." The clinical psychology guild lobby
>, the APA, has done a good job getting clinical psychologists political
>power through laws -- this is largely what many laws are about.
>Unfortunately, it does not promote needed science or any true
>science-practitioner role.
>
>
>In article <xx571479-210...@cnc047216.concentric.net>,
>xx57...@anon.penet.fi (Cognitee) wrote:
>
>> Just for the record,
>> I have responded to basically this same "FAQ" from a Paul Bernhardt. I
>> believe he is likely the author (or much is "borrowed" from him). I don't
>> know whether to read it all again and re-write my response to its lies and
>> mischaracterizations, or simply do a search for my last such response.
>> Well, let me go back and read this damned thing again....
>[snip]
>[snip]
Cognitee
Just in case I am corrct and this abusive, inappropriate so-called "FAQ"
is from Paul Bernhardt (Paul.Be...@m.cc.utah.edu), who has written a
remarkably similar one in the past: Let me just say, Paul, FAQ **YOU**
In article <xx571479-210...@cnc047216.concentric.net>,
xx57...@anon.penet.fi (Cognitee) wrote:
Cognitee
Dear Joe Parsons,
I am sorry I did not remove alt.support.attn-deficit from the
distribution list before responding to the inappropriate "Anonymous"
post. I, myself, do not post to the alt.support.attn-deficit newsgroup.
Possibly the reason "Anonymous" posted there was in some attempt to try to
draw more publicity against me or to have a larger audience with whom to
solicit abuses.
In article <3345d1df...@news.nothingbutnet.net>, j...@cyber-mall.com wrote:
> Please remove alt.support.attn-deficit from your distribution list, as
> it is off-topic there.
>
> Thank you in advance for your anticipated courtesy.
>
> Joe Parsons
> alt.support.attn-deficit
>
>
>
Dr. Richard X. Frager
Thank you for this important information, Cognitee.
As usual, it is absolutely right and very concise.
We are lucky that you are here to steer us and keep
us on the right course. Thanks again.
Richard Frager
Cognitee
Dear Joe Parsons,
I shall make clear what is going on, where someone tries to muddy my
name. After that (AS USUAL) I shall not cross-post to your specialized
group. I have never initiated any cross-posting there. Nor do I
typically post to your specialized group myself.
In article <33345d8d...@news.supernews.com>, j...@cyber-mall.com wrote:
> Mr. Jesness:
>
> It would have been a LOT easier to accept at face value your apology for
> crossposting your responses to this post to alt.support.attn-deficit if
> you were not continuing to send your responses here.
>
> Please edit your newsgroups line. We have more than enough distractions
> in that newsgroup.
>
Cognitee
> Brad Jesness FAQ -- Version 1.22
> ----------------------------------
> Now being maintained by anonymous
> December 11, 1996
>
> A FAQ about an individual is a controversial thing. Some will be glad to
> see this posting because of Brad Jesness's intrusion into the various
> psychology groups. Others will argue this is against common netiquette.
[snip]
Paul Bernhardt
In article <xx571479-220...@dial002.future.net>,
xx57...@anon.penet.fi (Cognitee) wrote:
> Just for the record,
> I have responded to basically this same "FAQ" from a Paul Bernhardt. I
> believe he is likely the author (or much is "borrowed" from him). I don't
> know whether to read it all again and re-write my response to its lies and
> mischaracterizations, or simply do a search for my last such response.
> Well, let me go back and read this damned thing again....
>
I admit that I wrote the original version of the FAQ over a year ago. I
posted several versions of it here as well. However, I have not posted it
here, or anywhere else, nor emailed it anywhere since my last posting on
S.P.P. since months before the December 1996 date documented in the FAQ. I
am not the current maintainer of this FAQ nor do I know who is, nor do I
know who has posted this version of it. This version is so greatly edited
from my previous versions that I can hardly tell what was originally mine
and what is not.
> ...Ok I have read it. I have 5 publications, not three. The complete
> citation for the Ethology and Sociobiology essay HAS been given.
Give it again in reply to this message. I'll bet the FAQ holder will
include it in a future update. Put up or shut up.
>I have
> done research, not only as a research assistant, but my own research. I
> have developed, for example, a special scoring system for the CPI to be
> used as a tool in selecting good candidates for peer counselors (AND I
> HAVE SAID SO MANY TIMES AND I HAVE OFFERED TO MAKE THIS SYSTEM AVAILABLE
> to those who have legitimate uses for it). I developed and normed and did
> pilot validation work on this tool.
I have requested that you provide this system to me and to provide your
data which substantiates your claims. You have refused. This is a
violation of APA ethics. APA ethical rules say that any claims about
research made in a journal or in public must be backed by data and that
data must be made available to any person who is legitimately qualified to
examine it. I meet the standard of such a person. Put up or shut up.
+=============================================================+
Paul C. Bernhardt, M.S. in Social Psychology (non-clinical)
+=============================================================+
Cognitee
P.S. Pual,
I am certainly not obligated to share my original and copyrighted work
with you (this includes my supplemental CPI scoring). See how silly, and
down right ignorant you are ??
In article <Paul.Bernhardt-...@news.cc.utah.edu>,
Cognitee
Dear Paul,
I will not waste time on you. You have absolutely no legitimate
business with my supplemental CPI scoring system. I have publically
offered to make my scoring system available to many professionals on
mailing lists and this offer is open to legitimate professionals still.
I owe you NOTHING !! I will not describe anything further about me or
my work to you. It would be worse than pearls before swine.
And, since you have proven nothing TO ME about yourself, I consider you
nothing but a big misleading bag of hot air. I know nothing about you.
Nothing has been proven to me !!
Cognitee
Dear Paul,
You are wrong about APA ethics. I need not provide you with anything
since you have *no legitimate interest*. You can not force me to work for
you on whim. I have provided enough about my writings for you to tract
them down. The scoring system is NOT public. (By the way: The APA will
soon be kissing my rear end anyway -- many professors are taking my
charges against the APA and the field *very seriously*. Things will
change with the APA soon or they will come down.)
Also, the FAQ is still basically your very same FAQ. As such it is
still your embarrassment.