Dan Rogers, sppm moderator, abuser hate supporter Pt. 1
D.L.Rogers
mewed as
"Anonymous" <nob...@remailer.privacy.at> wrote in message
news:f062c7bd5028c2d7...@remailer.privacy.at...
> ABOUT
> Dan Rogers, Publicly Elected 'Moderator' of the
> sci.psychology.psychotherapy.moderated newsgroup
Still bugs you, doesn't it brad? You were the only person to campaign for a
moderator position, and you lost. The only vote you got was from you.
You had nominated yourself, you wrote posts supporting yourself, and you
voted for yourself. And you lost.
And you have never had a post accepted to the moderated group, because you
can't use civil discourse.
> Dan Rogers (licensed Ft. Dodge, Iowa psychologist) is a public
office holder
That still bugs you too, doesn't it, brad? You aren't a psychologist. You
tried to call yourself one, but the Minnesota AG office spanked your wazoo.
You couldn't finish the grad program at U of Iowa. So you remain bitter
against psychologists. And it's made worse for you by the success of your
uncle, who is a psychologist and who is respected.
> and in an elected position as sppm moderator. Dan Rogers is
also a
> disgraceful malicious defamer, a stalker and harasser, and an
unethical liar.
> This web page is just to provide a glimpse into his character and
motivations,
> so people will know not to re-elect this horrible and dishonest and
untrustworthy
> person to ANY public office. It is also the view of this web
page writer and
> owner that Dan Rogers of Ft. Dodge, Iowa is UNFIT to practice
clinical
> psychology.
Well, I think my reputation in the field outweighs your lame rants. I'll
rest on my publications, the good relationships I have with my past grad
students, the court decisions that speak nicely of me, my friends. I feel
good about the path I have led.
You, on the other hand, leave a trail of enemies. No respect, just a bunch
of lies. Calling neurologically ill children "barking dogs," making fun of
someone whose friend had just committed suicide, threatening students who
didn't know that you aren't a genuine professor, trolling for dates on
support newsgroups, trying to get people to use a test "scoring program"
that has a virus embedded in it, ...
Goes on and on. Your own wife doesn't list you as a member of the
family, nor as one of her friends.
> Dan Rogers' real motivation for abuse. To lie about and
> disparage a up-to-date accurate web site on the "state of the science"
> of the field of psychotherapy.
You have been spnaked so often, but you continue to make the same claims.
The same old arguments that were old stuff 40 years ago. And you know
nothing about the modern state of research in psychotherapy. Isn't that why
you got booted out of school: you insisted that people accept your
"creative" analysis of the fields of psychotherapy and counseling, but you
would not listen to faculty telling you that the field had moved on, had
passed you?
It's plagiarism, brad, to keep writing the same things that others wrote
long ago, without even giving proper attibution to the sources.
The brad faq says it all. So do your suckpuppets, now numbering almost a
thousand. Why would someone with real contributions keep publishing
"anonymously," with a thousand different aliases? Why would a real
scientist have to claim to be a college professor, when you never have been.
Why do you continue to claim to have the academic support of a number of
scholars, who were only being polite to you had who have posted here to say
that they do not agree with you?
The only recognition you have ever received is as a kook, at
alt.usenet.kooks. You won more awards there than anybody else: Looney
Maroon (several times), Kook of the Month (many times), Internet Crybaby,
Busted Urinal, George Armstrong Custer Award, and more. People from all
over usenet voted for you, over and over. Not just psychologists, but
everybody!
brad? ... HARFUL
Dan R.
Master of Card XII
Peter Hood #17
brad owner #19
This site can now be seen at:
>
> http://www.concentric.net/~cyberper/it.html
>
> From: "Dan Rogers" <dlro...@frontiernet.net>
> Newsgroups: sci.psychology.psychotherapy, alt.usenet.kooks
> Subject: Re: Brad, the Voice of the Future
> Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1998 08:43:50 -0600
> Organization: Dan Rogers
> Lines: 28
> Message-ID: <721mc4$1dgu$1...@node17.cwnet.frontiernet.net>
> References: <1998110702...@replay.com>
> NNTP-Posting-Host: as5200-2-43.ftd.ia.frontiernet.net
> X-Complaints-To: ab...@frontiernet.net
> X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2110.0
> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
> Xref: news alt.usenet.kooks:114598 sci.psychology.psychotherapy:70414
>
>
> brad the fut wrote as "anonymous":
> >I have read http://www.future.net/~bradj/it.html and find it
> >very sensible and progressive. What I really wonder about is
> >why it made (makes?) such a big fuss here.
>
>
> Since you asked: because it is dumb.
>
> Nothing new or useful on the whole drivel-driven, poorly conceived,
> html-impaired web "page." You don't even know the difference
> between a web site and a web page.
>
> Also because the whole dumb document 1) talks about old,
> worn out concerns in the field of psychotherapy research, concerns
> that have been passed for over 25 years, with more relevant and
> important topics under investigation now, and 2) it claims as
> original thought a set of concepts and issues that have been
> common knowledge in clinical psychology for decades.
>
> By one definition of the word, that would constitute plagiarism.
>
> I'll move this thread to alt.usenet.kooks, where it belongs.
>
>
> (end quote of Dan's post)
>
> (He "moved the discussion" to alt.usenet.kooks to disparage me
> in ABUSIVE WAYS there.)
>
> Reply to Dan Rogers about the web page
> (now at http://www.concentric.net/~cyberper/it.html). These are replies
> to his FALSE allegations that the web page is NOT ORIGINAL, NOT CURRENT,
> AND NOT SUPPORTED BY MAJOR PEOPLE IN THE FIELD. ALL these
> accusations Dan Rogers, unethical psychologist from Ft. Dodge, Iowa,
> HAS MADE. He has been proven a liar on each of these counts
> SEVERAL TIMES. HE HAS and WILL LIE INTENTIONALLY.
> He both lies about events and lies about the state of his science. He
> cannot be trusted. He continues to knowingly and intentionally lie.
>
> Addressing Some of Rogers Unethically False Claims About the State
> of the Science of Psychotherapy
>
>
> First addressing the originality and the current data issues:
>
>
> Contents of my web page which is a matter of contention: My web page
> covers original ideas or reviews and commentaries on recent or on-going
> studies (and describes what the implications of these studies may be):
>
> * Original Manifesto -- a major distinction I outline and propose in this
> manifesto is when a treatment should properly be termed a "therapy'" and
> when it should be termed "counseling" (a matter up GREAT debate and a LACK
> of agreeement, at least up until 2 years ago -- when it was last debated
in
> the newsgroups). I point out that standards for a "therapy" to be
> considered "validated" are **still under review TODAY** by Div. 17 of the
> APA.
>
> * My manifesto advocates the testing of the efficacy of peer counselors
(or
> other paras) by comparing their effectiveness in **controlled studies with
> professionals** -- as of two years ago some leaders in the field still
> questioned the ethics of this (and I showed these studies to be more
> ethical than many of the "waitlist" and Placebo studies now done). I
> support the appropriate development of a true mental health care system
> with more adjunct roles (i.e. true, well-defined paraprofessional roles).
> I also argue that such studies are needed to much better define where
> professional help is needed.
>
> * I advocate practitioner in each individual agency to work together
> bettering reliability of diagnoses and treatments so the term "science
> practionioner" has a real legitimate meaning (and is not false and
> misleading). I describe how the term right now is empty of meaning and
> lead to false pretenses. This interrater reliability work is **NOT
> done today**.
>
> * I review the most **recent meta-analysis** on "other helpers" by Stein
> and Lambert and show this study to be a fraud, misrepresenting what the
> hodge-podge of UNcontrolled studies mean.
>
> * Using my own calculations I compare the strength of results of
> psychotherapy with the difference found between men and women on some
> scales of some major personality inventories. ALSO: I point out that
> trends in a **recent study** by Anderson and Lambert (1995) may indicate
> that the results of "therapy" may differ substantially based on the sort
of
> control group used (we may just need controlled studies and/or larger
> groups of studies to get significant differences between efficacy studies
> using differnet sorts of control groups).
>
> * I note some research that has indicated that psychotherapists get much
> more treatment than any typical client (i.e. than other people **who get
> treatment**) and point out some other congruent indications that
> psychotherapists may well not be well-adapted people. I make the
> connection between this and the *recent findings* on defensiveness and the
> inability to show good sorts of empathy.
>
> * I point out that, according to the research ***summarized in the VERY
> recently released DSM-IV Sourcebook Vol. 2***, very little work on
> investigating ways of acheiveing interrater reliabilities of diagnostic
> criteria was done between the last DSM and the new one. I argue against
> just developing criteria "in committees" every decade or so.
>
> * I compare the interrater reliabilities PRESENTLY sought by a professor
> named G. Meyer for inkblot interpretations WITH the interrater
> reliabilities show with the ***NEW ICD-10*** diagnostic criteria.
>
> * I outline (in an original, specific hypotheis) how major bolstered false
> pretenses of psychotherapists may lead to abuses of power and abuses of
> clients. I indicate how the hypothesis is congruent and similar to some
> other findings in the field.
>
> * I attack the APA for not promoting the needed basic research indicated
above.
>
> * I offer a critique of Martin Seligman's ***RECENT review*** of the
> Consumer Reports study (uncontrolled survey) on consumer satisfaction with
> therapy. I offer a clear alternative for better or more important research
> that would meaningfully indicate the unique effects of professional
> treatment (where this exists).
>
> * I give a detailed review and in-depth critique of the **1995
> meta-analysis*** of Stein and Lambert
> in the Jour. of Consulting and Clinical Psyc.
>
> * I point out that even the above authors see the most recent well-
> controlled study on the topic they review as the old 1979 Strupp and
Hadley
> study.
>
>
> Here are quotes of some of the several pieces of support for the
> facts and views on Brad Jesness' web site:
>
> SUPPORT FOR BRAD'S FACTS AND VIEWS:
>
> Support for Brad's views (at http://www.concentric.net/~cyberper/it.html)
> from MAJOR LEADERS IN THE CLINICAL/COUNSELING PSYCHOLOGY FIELD (the
> facts and views Brad sites are the actual reason for the hostility
> against Brad which has included unethical behavior and stalking and
> harassment by 'professionals' in the field.
>
>
> Major Distinguished Clinical Professor supports Brad's Views.
>
> Major Distinguished Clinical Professor, Alvin Mahrer, one of this year's
> recipients of the Distinguished Psychologist Award,
> after Reading Parts 1 - 3 of my major paper at:
> http://www.future.net/~bradj/it.html SAID (quoting him in part):
>
> "Good for you! I like what you are arguing,
> and what you are working toward achieving makes good sense, I think. ...
> On to more of your good thinking..."
>
> After reading the end of Part 3 through Part 5, Prof. Mahrer said, in
part:
>
> " I am impressed with your comprehensive and tough criticisms of
therapists
> and their training. Excellent work.
> My book (the best of ll) can feed and support your critical notions."
>
> After reading Part 6, this Distinguished Clinical professor said (in
part):
>
> "I am reading chapters in O'donohue and Kitchener's Philosophy and
> Psychology. Some of the chapters on ethical codes are hand-in-glove with
> what you write.
> Publish your stuff!...
> Most of the issues you cover are (a) very important, but (b) not in my
> experiential approach."
>
> After reading the Addendum to part 6, Prof. Alvin Mahrer says:
> (again,quoting part of what he said):
>
> " Your criticisms and analyses of this batch of material reads as if it
> ought to be in an APA Psychologist article. Why not? Do it!
> I agree with all your solid points.
> Again, I do research to discover more about how to do psychotherapy
> better."
>
> AND:
>
> Author: Allen E Ivey
> Email: [Ivey's email address deleted by me]
> Date:1996/07/11
> Forums: sci.psychology.psychotherapy
>
>
> Yes, he is controversial, but he raised important issues. Psychology
> seems to me in a narrow fog and brad is one tryinig to free us to
> think more openly.
>
> I am not aware of efforts to censor Brad. If so, that is a disgrace and
> speaks very poorly about some narrow mind(s).
>
> Brad perhaps needs to be a bit more patient with us, but most of all I
> respect him, his ability, and his willingness to challenge us all.
>
> Allen Ivey, Distinguished Univ. Professor
> U Mass. Amherst
>
> AND
>
> (quoting) Dr. Paul Barrett, chief clinical psychology researcher:
>
> "... monitoring the largely evidence-based arguments put up by Brad, I
have
> yet to see much of a defence from the assembled clinicians on the
> CLINICAL-PSYCHOLOGISTS listserv that could be said to address the thrust
of
> his arguments. This is not to say that I agree with the manner in which
Brad
> expresed his arguments (which revolve around only one or two very simple,
> *but potentially devastating propositions*), but within the body of
several
> of his messages, these propositions did seem to be relatively unambiguous.
> [(*s inserted by me)]
> Barrett, again:..."[but if Ziskin is correct] then the clinical profession
> is akin to a form of wizadry. If he is largely incorrect, the profession
> should be able to silence critics such as Ziskin, and the Brad Jessness's
of
> the world! Perhaps a published rebuke exists already? If so, could someone
> post up a reference or two that I can follow up."
> "... my job is largely to do with assessment and treatment evaluation,
plus
> innovation where required. I have to go back to first principles in order
to
> determine where, how, and why, both assessments and treatments are
> implemented, using standards of evidence appraisal that I would use in my
> more usual work/research as an individual differences research
> psychologist." Paul Barrett, Chief Scientist, Ashworth Hospital,
> Liverpool, UK; Hon. Senior Research Fellow, Dept. of Clinical Psychology,
> Liverpool University
>
> AND
>
> Quoting :
>
> Now the quote of the serious distinguished clinical researcher and
> chief U.K. scientist(quoted with his permission):
>
> Message-ID: <eMKZdpn...@nih2naaa.prod2.compuserve.com>
>
Newsgroups:sci.psychology.psychotherapy,alt.usenet.kooks,alt.brad.jesness.di
e.die.die
>
> Xref: news alt.brad.jesness.die.die.die:1026 alt.usenet.kooks:84310
> sci.psychology.psychotherapy:48321
>
> Hello
>
> With regard to the recent postings by Brad Jesness, and the use of my name
> etc. as a supporter of his documents etc.... let me clear up one or two
> issues.
>
> I agree that the major foci of Brad's 30 page document are worth
considered
> professional discussion and some very careful thought. Specifically:
>
> 1. The difference between counseling and therapy, including the
> consideration of just what constitutes "therapy".
> 2. The problems with placebo and waitlist controls, and effect sizes in
the
> controlled studies literature. Further, the whole issue of what
constitutes
> "therapy" and "outcome" in such studies is problematical.
> 3. The problem of categorisation boundaries of disorders in the DSM -
> reliability issues etc.
> 4. The problem of diagnostic accuracy/agreement on the part of both
> psychiatrists and psychologists.
> 5. The legal status of the clinical psychologist as an "expert".
> 6. The overall standards of "practice" mandated by the APA.
>
> However, I'm not sure anyone would disagree that these are some of the
most
> taxing issues facing the profession. For example, just what is a desired
> "outcome" - who "desires" it - how can we measure such outcomes (if at
> all?), what constitutes a therapy (such that we can distinguish it from
> "non-therapy"? Also, for those who might have digested some of my
arguments
> concerning science and measurement, I'm sure that the issues now seem even
> more problematical - as they should. Remember also that the three volume
> series edited by the late Jay Ziskin(1995) provides much of the detailed
> legal and technical arguments surrounding the issues encompassed in Brad's
> documents. Of course, several critics have accused him of being selective
in
> certain areas - but the sheer weight and breadth of evidence brought
forward
> by the various contributors dwarfs such arguments.
>
> So, this is where I agree with Brad that the APA should be considering if
> there is any kind of firm recommendations that could be made concerning
> clinical practice. However, this is easy to propose - but damned difficult
> to see how an organisation can approach the issues in a formal manner.
>
> [snip of short content-irrelevant paragraph]
>
> Regards ... Paul
>
> P.S. Should anybody wish to quote or cross-post this message, feel free.
As
> always, I stand by everything I post.
>
> -Reference-
> Ziskin, J.Z. (1995) Coping with Psychiatric and Psychological Testimony
> Vols. 1, 2, and 3. Law and Psychology Press.
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
> Paul Barrett Direct Tel: (44)-1555-841343
> email: p.ba...@liv.ac.uk Hospital Tel: (44)-1555-840293
> CompuServe: 100035,2124 Fax: (44)-1555-840024
> http://www.liv.ac.uk/~pbarrett/paulhome.htm
>
> Chief Scientist, The State Hospital, Carstairs, Scotland, ML11 8RP, UK
>
> (end quote)
> ******
>
> Dan Rogers and his personally abusive behavior
>
> Dan Rogers and his personally abusive behavior on abuse
> newsgroups.
>
> Here is where Dan Rogers, unethical Ft. Dodge Iowa psychologist,
> makes it clear he wants to vote Brad Jesness NOT HUMAN, after
> making other disparaging remarks IN ABUSE NEWSGROUPS.:
>
>
> From: "Dan Rogers" <dlro...@frontiernet.net>
> Newsgroups: sci.psychology.psychotherapy, alt.usenet.kooks,
> alt.brad.jesness.die.die.dieSubject: brad the fut requested a mathematical
proof and gets it!!
> Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 19:57:03 -0500
> Organization: Dan Rogers
> Lines: 51
> Message-ID: <6u6sm1$4u8$1...@node17.cwnet.frontiernet.net>
> References: <1998092120...@replay.com>
> <4qzN1.1225$Ge.37...@ptah.visi.com> <3606C6...@hotmail.com>
> <8HzN1.1230$Ge.37...@ptah.visi.com>
> <3606CC...@hotmail.com> <m7AN1.1236$Ge.37...@ptah.visi.com>
> NNTP-Posting-Host: as5200-2-22.ftd.ia.frontiernet.net
> X-Complaints-To: ab...@frontiernet.net
> X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2110.0
> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
> Xref: news alt.brad.jesness.die.die.die:2377
> alt.usenet.kooks:108163 sci.psychology.psychotherapy:66179
>
>
> jeremy@please don't spam me .wavefront .com wrote in message ...
> >Just before high-siding Cognitee <good...@hotmail.com> shrieked:
> >: Proof my butt !!!
> >
> >Well, I'm sure there's a mathematician out there somewhere who'd
> >be willing to give this one a shot...
>
>
> I'll be glad to! (My BA was in pure math, and this request by
> bradnee is a challenge.)
>
> If A and B are points and A is not B, then there is a
> point C such that C is between A and B.
>
> bradnee's buttocks cannot fit between any two points
> A and B, therefore bradnee's butt is not between A and B and
> all points that are not between A and B and are not A or B
> are included in the set of points that constitutes bradnee's
> buttocks.
>
> There also exists a point D such that D is not between
> A and B, is not A or B, A is not between D and B, and
> B is not between D and A.
>
> The statements "bradnee has a brain" and "there is a
> universe" are mutually exclusive: if one statement is
> true then the other must be false.
>
> There is a universe. Therefore the statement that "bradnee
> has a brain" is false unless bradnee's brain includes one and
> only one point, BJ.
>
> There are no points A or B that could tolerate bradnee; therefore
> BJ (bradnee's brain" is not between A and B and is not A or B.
>
> bradnee's buttocks are not between A and B. As shown
> above, all points that are not A or B and are not between A
> and B are bradnee's buttocks.
>
> Therefore, bradnee's brain is in his buttocks.
>
> * * * *
>
> That was fun, bradnee. Can we next deal with proofing that you
> are human?
>
>
> -------------
>
> Rogers votes Brad as NOT HUMAN
>
> Here is where Dan Rogers wants to cast his vote 'NO' on the
> question "Is Brad a human being". He follows up the similar
> 'work' of co-sppm 'moderator' John Price.
>
>
> From: "Dan L. Rogers, Ph.D." <dlro...@frontiernet.net>
> Newsgroups: alt.usenet.kooks
> Subject: Re: VOTE: No confidence in Bradley L. Jesness KoTM, LMA, LMA,
GK, JGMA as a human being.
> Date: 27 Jun 1998 03:19:46 GMT
> Organization: Dan L. Rogers, Ph.D.
> Lines: 28
> Message-ID: <6n1oci$2fa6$1...@node17.cwnet.frontiernet.net>
> NNTP-Posting-Host: as5200-2-45.ftd.ia.frontiernet.net
> X-Complaints-To: ab...@frontiernet.net
> X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4
> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
> Xref: news alt.usenet.kooks:92989
>
> I wanna vote. Where's the post?
>
> John M Price wrote in message <35930070.0@calwebnnrp>...
> >
> >Perhaps this thread should be 'boosted' for quick expiry times? I'd
reall
> >like a score or more.
> >
> >TIA.
> >
> >
> >
> >--
> >John M. Price, PhD jmp...@calweb.com
> >Life: Chemistry, but with feeling! | PGP Key on request or by finger!
> > Email responses to my Usenet articles will be posted at my discretion.
> >Comoderator: sci.psychology.psychotherapy.moderated Atheist# 683
>
> Unethical 'Dr.' Dan Rogers nominates people for KOOK awards
>
> Here is 'Dr.' Dan Rogers actually nominating Brad for a KOOK award
> in alt.usenet.kooks. (Such campaigns were also led by 'Dr.' Leslie
> E. Packer, NY psychologist and long time newsgroup leader. In fact,
> she and her children sometimes comprised 1/4 of the votes a
> KOOK winner received!!)
>
> From: "Dan L. Rogers, Ph.D." <dlro...@frontiernet.net>
> Newsgroups: alt.usenet.kooks
> Subject: Nomination: The Custer Award
> Date: 1 Aug 1998 14:10:13 GMT
> Organization: Dan L. Rogers, Ph.D.
> Lines: 49
> Message-ID: <6pv7k5$1lgq$1...@node17.cwnet.frontiernet.net>
> References: <hangspamhigh-ya02408...@news.concentric.net>
> NNTP-Posting-Host: as5200-2-32.ftd.ia.frontiernet.net
> X-Complaints-To: ab...@frontiernet.net
> X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4
> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
> Xref: news alt.usenet.kooks:99894
>
> Nomination:
>
> What a keen award, and I can think of nobody more deserving
> that bradnee (Brad Jesness).
>
> He has only recently announced that he roundly defeated the
> president of the American Psychological Association in a
> debate a couple of years ago in a newsgroup, citing as evidence
> the fact that the scholar no longer bothers responding to
> bradnee's statements.
>
> Bradnee now uses over 330 suckpuppets, and counts them
> as his supporters. Apparently, he believes their votes, and
> uses this to avoid ever admitting that he has lost an argument.
>
> His stellar talents at maintaining that he is correct, in the face
> of loving and tender responses from alt.flame and alt.usenet.kooks,
> is incredible.
>
> He has my vote!!
>
> Phoenix wrote in message ...
> >For many moons your Friendly Neighborhood LMA Supreme Dictator
> >has searched for that true and finishing touch to complete the collection
> >of LMA honors in alt.usenet.kooks. KotM's realm gets to have seven;
> >why shouldn't this one? Alas, things like sock puppetry, legal bluffing
> >and Nazi-namecalling have become commonplace on Usenet. However,
> >this award shall honor those who strive farther, to cherish the moment,
> >and savor the Victory of Defeat. In other words, those that get their
> >@$$ kicked by 3,232,308,232.01 flames, declare glorious victory, and
> >keep coming back for more. Those damn fool souls that can NEVER,
> >EVER accept their fate, even if it means riding with a target painted on
> >them in front of Sitting Bull's entire armada.
> >
> >I hereby announce the creation of the Gen. George Armstrong Custer
> >"Kicked @$$" Award, the highly dubious honor to be given those who
> >relish reliving their Last Stand, over and over and over again.
> >
> >You may call this the Custer Award.
> >
> >--
> >Free.*'s Oldest Inhabitant (Free.* = "no rules, just right.")
> >--
> >/\ Cabal Obsidian Order, Operative X (Directorate), aka CNS CXCIX
> > \ /\ Master Kookologist At Your Service - http://web.shorty.com/kotm
> > \/ \ Freedom Wankers of Usenet - http://www2.cybernex.net/~charliec
> > / \ "When the Cabal smiles, IT'S TOO LATE TO BE AFRAID!" - tinc
>