Monica Pignotti "You haven't heard the last of me"
Anne Onime
Dated 17.04.2000, Monica Pignotti said:
"You haven't heard the last of me -- not by a long shot, and you haven't
heard the last of Roger Callahan. There will be alot more to come,
just not on this thread or on this newsgroup because you are not
important enough for me to waste my time on. What we have to say will
be presented in the appropriate forum at the appropriate time, so watch
for it. I have much bigger and more important projects to complete and
if I waste time arguing with you, I won't get them done. TFT is here
to stay because we are getting results way beyond anything you could
ever imagine. We're not going to go away, rest assured and it really
doesn't matter how many web sites you put up or how much you trash me.
That's the bottom line."
Very telling, and little has changed since then.
Monica Pignotti. Cultist.
Monica Pignotti. Unstable.
Monica Pignotti. Unfit to teach.
Monica Pignotti. Duplicitious.
Monica Pignotti. Self-serving.
Transremaxculver
add here that there is a good deal of projection.
Monica Pignotti
[resurrection of ancient history snipped]
On the contrary, everything has changed since then. I completely
repudiated TFT, published a number of additional articles in peer
reviewed journals that are critical of TFT and obtained my PhD. You
must have a lot of time on your hands to pour over 11-year-old
postings that are now ancient history and then lie that nothing has
changed. I have respect and support from the scientific mental health
community who disagrees with the opinion posted by anonymous smear
campaigners and considers me quite fit to teach:
http://site.monicapignotti.com
although obviously not from the followers of the therapies I have
criticized. Instead of responding, they continue the ad hominem
attacks and resurrection of outdated material. You can chant the "C"
word all you want, but it is not an effective way to refute my
criticism:
http://phtherapies.wordpress.com
The more attacks you post about me, the more it confirms the fact that
you are impotent to issue any kind of substantive rebuttal to my
criticisms of your therapy guru.
Kat
wrote:
I'm amazed, Monica. I finally met a bigger lunatic magnet than myself.
I don't know whether to bow in awe or give you a supportive hug.
Monica Pignotti
What it means is that we must be doing something right :) Ineffective
people or people who are to frightened to expose abuses don't attract
lunatics.
Transremaxculver
This is a truism if ever there was one.
Sir Gregory Hall, Esq.
news:d258357c-bd07-4e05...@f11g2000vbx.googlegroups.com...
::
It's a lie and I can prove it. Kat is ineffective and frightened and she
attracted me. LOL!
--
Gregory Hall
Dennis Erlich
>What it means is that we must be doing something right :) Ineffective
>people or people who are to frightened to expose abuses don't attract
>lunatics.
She better be careful or she'll put her shoulder out of socket patting
herself on the back for crusading against a practice that's already
against the law in most states.
BFD
_______________________
"Scientology does not dissuade members from seeking out
medical attention or getting any medication." - Monica Pignotti, PHD
"At this point, if we could go back in time and get rid of the internet
altogether, I would be all for it." - Monica Pignotti, PHD
"If you don't stop pointing out my hypocrisy,
I'm gonna tell Steve Hassan on you." - Monica Pignotti, PHD
Monica Pignotti
> Monica Pignotti <monica.pignotti....@gmail.com> wrote:
> >What it means is that we must be doing something right :) Ineffective
> >people or people who are to frightened to expose abuses don't attract
> >lunatics.
>
> She better be careful or she'll put her shoulder out of socket patting
> herself on the back for crusading against a practice that's already
> against the law in most states.
>
against the law in many (not "most") states, but ONLY in institutions
such as schools and hospitals. There are no restrictions in any state
on private therapists such as Federici instructing parents on how to
use them at home on their children as he does in his self-published
book which he sells complete with diagrams. That's what I am speaking
out against. I suggest you look at the facts before jumping to
unwarranted conclusions because this is a topic I have carefully
researched and I know what the law is. If it were against the law, the
he wouldn't be allowed to continue to sell his book which advises this
and he wouldn't continue to defend it, which he does. There is no law
that prohibits him or anyone else from doing that.
Dennis Erlich
> There is no law
>that prohibits him or anyone else from doing that.
The effing law of common sense says you don't smother a child to death
who is misbehaving. A very brave stance for the Professor to take on
such a controversial issue. NOT!
Perhaps another petition signed by all the children she's saved will
convince me.
Kat
If the law of common sense alone prevailed, then she wouldn't NEED to
speak out. If common sense prevailed, Federici and Friends wouldn't be
smothering children.
Transremaxculver
> Monica Pignotti <monica.pignotti....@gmail.com> wrote:
> > There is no law
> >that prohibits him or anyone else from doing that.
>
> The effing law of common sense says you don't smother a child to death
> who is misbehaving. A very brave stance for the Professor to take on
> such a controversial issue. NOT!
>
> Perhaps another petition signed by all the children she's saved will
> convince me.
>
> D
Clearly you have never learned of positional asphyxia, or post
restraint asphyxia, nor compression poisoning, You do not seem to
realise how distressed, and dangerous to themselves and others a child
can become. Nor do you appear to realise that restraint of any kind
carries a risk. Further you seem to believe that 'not restraining' a
child is an easy option, which: when they are attempting to kill
another child, it is not.
It is clear from reading Federici's papers that he believes that for a
child to 'confront' certain feelings a 'crisis' must be provoked. This
is a questionable practice to say the least, and may often lead to a
restraint. Clearly children with difficulties should challenged,
certainly over unacceptable behaviour, however the challenge should be
regulated within the child's capacity to change and not within an
organisations capacity to control those outbursts which occur.
In a funding driven system experience shows that restraints of all
kinds occur in order to meet the needs of the system rather than the
child. With an extremely disturbed child, staff ratio's in order to
manage the environment to challenge the child sufficiently to promote
change but not so much as to provoke acting out that results in
restraint might need to be at a minimum of 1:1, and as high as 3:1
that's adults to children. Where restraint is common staff ratios are
often below optimum, and restraint occurs not as a means of
protection, but as a means of control, and on occasion direct or
indirect punishment, this happens not consciously nor deliberately,
but because cultures within organisations grow up over time and good
conscientious staff are dragged down to the lowest common denominator.
This is reality, organisations can place intolerable expectations on
their staff to work within frameworks that will never cope with the
level of disturbance they face, especially if they are principally
governed by the need to attract new placements at a cost that keeps
them competitive.
As a means of control, the prone restraint is very effective, as is a
supine restraint, however a prone restraint is significantly more
dangerous than a Supine restraint, and a supine restraint more
dangerous than a standing restraint. A basket restraint may be applied
by one person, and can be effective at asserting control over a
smaller child, but is in practice as dangerous as a supine restraint.
What makes restraint such an unpredictable issue is that death from a
restraint, can occur not only during the restraint itself, but also an
hour and sometimes more afterwards. It is perfectly possible for a
restraint to appear to be over and the child calm and relaxed once
more only for a serious medical issue to arise, which might be fatal.
For instance compression poisoning, can occur in any situation where a
part of a persons body has been under pressure for more than 15
minutes.
This difficulty is compounded by the fact that at present it is next
to impossible to tell which children in which situations will be most
vulnerable to these issues, so that 99 out of 100 restraints that
occur have no identifiable problems related to them, but the one that
does concerns a death, or even brain damage. in this context
restraints that have a known problem associated with them should not
be used, ie The Prone restraint and the Basket restraint. Although the
Supine also has problems they are noted as not so serious, though it
is a much more uncomfortable practice for the staff involved since
they may be spat upon. This seems to me the main reason the prone
restraint is in use with children, to prevent them spitting on staff
during the exercise.
The question then arises concerning teaching such serious
interventions with such potentially sever consequences to parents, for
use on their own children, who may themselves have difficulties
managing their behaviour, (Parental difficulties are often associated
with children's difficulties, not always but frequently) and whether
this is right or advisable.
In such a context, for organisations working in a market place
competing for placements, legislation should provide the management of
those organisations with a level playing field, so that the temptation
to undercut rivals, skimping on staff or training in order to provide
the cheapest service, is boundaried by the legislation in place,
concerning both the mode of restraint in use, and the staff ratios
expected in order to deliver what restraint must occur to the highest
possible standard.
So I suggest you get a grip on the complexities of the issue before
you comment since you make glib simplistic statements which betray a
sever lack of understanding and or knowledge of the subject.
Monica Pignotti
> Monica Pignotti <monica.pignotti....@gmail.com> wrote:
> > There is no law
> >that prohibits him or anyone else from doing that.
>
> The effing law of common sense says you don't smother a child to death
> who is misbehaving.
Yes, it does but children have been smothered by these methods time
and time again. This is a very real problem and one that is a very hot
topic of debate. There was Federal legislation this year that was
being proposed to completely ban it in schools, but it did not pass.
Of course people do not intend to smother a child but it happens
because people use dangerous restraints.
>A very brave stance for the Professor to take on
> such a controversial issue. NOT!
It is highly controversial. The proposed ban on prone restraints
failed at the Federal level and has failed in many states. You only
show your ignorance -- but of course I doubt you are open to actually
reading up on the controversy. You just want to use it to slam me
because you have come here with an all too obvious agenda.
Monica Pignotti
wrote:
> On Jun 7, 11:26 pm, Dennis Erlich <infor...@informer.org> wrote:
>
> > Monica Pignotti <monica.pignotti....@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > There is no law
> > >that prohibits him or anyone else from doing that.
>
> > The effing law of common sense says you don't smother a child to death
> > who is misbehaving. A very brave stance for the Professor to take on
> > such a controversial issue. NOT!
>
> > Perhaps another petition signed by all the children she's saved will
> > convince me.
>
> > D
>
> Clearly you have never learned of positional asphyxia, or post
> restraint asphyxia, nor compression poisoning, You do not seem to
> realise how distressed, and dangerous to themselves and others a child
> can become. Nor do you appear to realise that restraint of any kind
> carries a risk. Further you seem to believe that 'not restraining' a
> child is an easy option, which: when they are attempting to kill
> another child, it is not.
Right, the more he posts, the more he displays his ignorance to anyone
who knows anything about this issue.
Monica Pignotti
wrote:
Here is a website that documents a number of deaths from restraints:
http://www.caica.org/RESTRAINTS%20Death%20List.htm
Here is the National Association for the Mentally Ill's discussion on
the topic:
I have several more links to articles and research:
http://phtherapies.wordpress.com/category/restraints/
But no, Dennis knows better than NAMI. He thinks this is just
something I made up and that prone restraints are no problem at all --
except that the NY Times just a few days ago reported yet another
death from prone restraint:
Dennis Erlich
> He thinks this is just
>something I made up and that prone restraints are no problem at all --
>except that the NY Times just a few days ago reported yet another
>death from prone restraint:
No, I think it's just a very safe bandwagon she hopped on to make
herself look like she's fighting some brave battle against something
other than weirdos tolling for kooks.
Looks like they caught one.
Kat
So people shouldn't speak out against something that is killing
children because it's too mainstream and "safe" to criticize?
When they speak out against those injustices and are subsequently
harassed for it, they are "playing victim"?
You.. do realize we are on an anti-scientology group, right? I really
hope you see the irony here...
Transremaxculver
> Monica Pignotti <monica.pignotti....@gmail.com> wrote:
> > He thinks this is just
> >something I made up and that prone restraints are no problem at all --
> >except that the NY Times just a few days ago reported yet another
> >death from prone restraint:
>
> No, I think it's just a very safe bandwagon she hopped on to make
> herself look like she's fighting some brave battle against something
> other than weirdos tolling for kooks.
>
> Looks like they caught one.
> D
Just like Gandhi and Nehru jumped on the Indian independence bandwagon
I suppose.
Or ML King and Malcolm X jumped on the civil rights movement bandwagon
Or Desmond TuTu and Nelson Mandela jumped in the anti Apartheid
movement bandwagon.
Or Thomas Jefferson and george washington Jumped on the American
Independence bandwagon.
You really don't do yourself any favours do you Dennis
Monica Pignotti
> Monica Pignotti <monica.pignotti....@gmail.com> wrote:
> > He thinks this is just
> >something I made up and that prone restraints are no problem at all --
> >except that the NY Times just a few days ago reported yet another
> >death from prone restraint:
>
> No, I think it's just a very safe bandwagon she hopped on to make
> herself look like she's fighting some brave battle against something
> other than weirdos tolling for kooks.
It is far from "safe" for me to be speaking out on this issue. No,
Dennis, the Eastern District Court of Virginia is a Federal court is
not "weirdos trolling for kooks." Far from it. I have been sued over
my stance and expression of my opinion on my blogs that the prone
restraints recommended in Federici's self-published book are dangerous
(this was one of the things he specified in his complaint). Plus,
Federici's procedure has been featured on Dateline NBC. That is hardly
"weirdos trolling for kooks".
Plus there has been a 2 year smear campaign that shows no signs of
letting up. Whether I am seen as being courageous is a matter of
opinion, Dennis, and you certainly are entitled to hold the opinion I
am not courageous, even though 47 mental health professionals, some of
them very prominent ones, disagree:
http://site.monicapignotti.com
If we were to be consistent about your line of argumentation that
anyone with a shred of common sense wouldn't do this, we could say
that anyone who has fought Scientology is also jumping on a "very
safe" bandwagon and we all know how false that is.
Most of us here would agree that embracing of Scientology beliefs
defies all common sense, yet many people do and have done so and harm
is being done. Critics of Scientology are far from "safe" as you well
know from your own experience. How would you like it, Dennis, if
someone told you that people who spoke out against your own children
being harmed by Scientology nonsense were jumping on a "safe"
bandwagon? That's what you are doing by attempting to minimize the
importance of speaking out on this issue, to all the children who are
victims of prone restraint and continue to die from this procedure
that people have argued against banning convincingly enough to
persuade legislatures in some states NOT to ban it.
Also, note that Ronald Federici, a licensed psychologist who remains
so, continues to insist his procedures in his self-published book are
safe and effective, people are signing up for his workshops and
seminars and using these on their children (I have actually debated
such parents on my blog) and so far, nothing is being done about this
because what he does is considered perfectly legal. So far,
legislative efforts have only focused on banning prone restraints in
institutional settings such as schools and hospitals and have not
focused on the recommendations of private therapists or what parents
do at home with their kids. This is a completely neglected area, in my
opinion, that attention needs to be drawn to and I will continue to do
so.
You also are performing a subtle twist in framing this debate, the
same ones that some of the anonymous posters are attempting. The issue
is not whether people are for or against smothering children. Of
course, no one in their right mind is in favor of that. The issue is
whether prone restraints can be safely used or whether they have been
shown to be dangerous enough that they ought to be banned. So far,
some states say yes, some say no.
I realize, Dennis, that you are very angry about me for unrelated
events and would like to lash out at me in any way you can, but please
have some decency and pick another way to lash out at me than
minimizing a very important issue that state and US legislatures are
debating as we "speak".
Monica Pignotti
I think the irony has completely escaped him, Kat. He is too focused
on lashing out against me in any way he can.
Dennis Erlich
>It is far from "safe" for me to be speaking out on this issue.
Oh bullshit! She's got state law and common sense on her side and she
still has to bother her colleagues for a petition backing her before
she feels safe. I wonder how many of those same colleagues required
other colleagues to sign such a weird request for support? None, I
bet. Yet they have been attacking real danger for years. And I bet
at least some of them signed rather than be accused later by the
learned Professor of supporting the smothering of children to death.
Much as she accused me.
And I wonder how many of those very same colleagues have ever needed
engage an arbitrator to settle a vendetta her or she started against
another colleague? Answer: undoubtedly none.
I'm sure these are known facts in the anti-cult community, making her
an obvious troll-magnet and kooky to those same colleagues.
<rest of her tl;dr self-promotional material snipt>
Look, if she keeps posting her dreck here yet can't explain herself
simply without dragging readers to her personal blog or site safeplace
where she can't be challenged directly, it is not bravery. It's a
cowardly self-promotion.
Monica Pignotti
> Monica Pignotti <monica.pignotti....@gmail.com> wrote:
> >It is far from "safe" for me to be speaking out on this issue.
>
> Oh bullshit! She's got state law and common sense on her side and she
> still has to bother her colleagues for a petition backing her before
> she feels safe.
As I predicted, you aren't interested in really learning anything
about this and don't seem to have even read what I wrote. Prone
restraint is legal in many states, including Florida, the state in
which I live and many other states. It doesn't appear that you even
read what I wrote. Scientology also defies common sense, but that
doesn't mean that people are not harmed by it and that doesn't mean
that critics of Scientology have not been put in danger, as you very
well know.
> I wonder how many of those same colleagues required
> other colleagues to sign such a weird request for support?
Required? I have no power to "require" them to do anything. You keep
ascribing power to me that I don't have. I let them know about my
situation and asked them to sign and they were very sympathetic (yes,
I realize sympathy is a very dirty word for people of your mindset)
and wanted to do anything they could to help me out. And no, they
didn't consider it "weird". Some had been through similar situations
themselves and had colleagues sign on for support. That's how I got
the idea.
>None, I bet. Yet they have been attacking real danger for years..
See above. You bet wrong. Actually, the people who signed are very
much aware that I am "attacking" a very real danger. I have good,
strong documentation for any statements I make. I do not accuse people
of smothering children to death who have not done so. This shows that
you really haven't bothered to inform yourself on what this is even
about. I never accused Federici of smothering children to death
because he never has. What I have done is to express my concerns about
the intervention he recommends in his self-published book, that
includes prone restraint for children and has no published controlled
studies to support its claims of being effective.
Children have died from prone restraint, but that doesn't mean I
accused Federici of smothering children. I am concerned that he is
recommending prone restraints because prone restraints have caused
deaths and are recognized as dangerous and completely banned in some
states but not in others and therefore are potentially dangerous. I
have pointed to all the evidence that shows prone restraint is
dangerous. I don't "accuse". I present documented facts. For example,
Comnell Watkins and Julie Ponder were actually tried and convicted of
smothering a 10 year old child to death by their version of
"attachment therapy". That is not an "accusation". That is a court
documented fact. My work is legitimate and published in peer reviewed
journals. But of course, Dennis knows better.
[trashing snipt -- there is much I could have said in response to
this, but I choose to take the high road]
Okay, now you make evident what I suspected. This is your actual
agenda. You have come into this discussion, not to learn about the
dangers of prone restraint, but to continue grinding your ax..
Suffice it to say that I am far from being the only one in the so-
called "anti-cult" community who has had a falling out with Steven
Hassan. It's a pretty commonplace occurrence so I doubt many think
less of me for that.
Dennis Erlich
>As I predicted, you aren't interested in really learning anything
>about this and don't seem to have even read what I wrote.
Duh. Brilliant deduction of the learned Professor. If I were
interested in finding out more about it I would have gone to the
appropriate newsgroup to find out. Not a newsgroup devoted to
scientology.
> You have come into this discussion, not to learn about the
>dangers of prone restraint, but to continue grinding your axe.
Come to this discussion?? WTF, the discussion is of scientology, not
child abuse.
Professor Pigno loves to dismiss criticism with ad hom. "Axe to
grind." I think not. I used to actually think that Miss Pignotti was
a sensible critic who just made a habit of being a stupid contrarian.
So I left a lot of her BS un rebutted. But I realized after months of
her trashing inFormer Ministry, which has never charged anyone for any
service or item, that she is a vindictive kook who is trying to make a
name for herself by taking down others with an actual name and
reputation. She was no doubt attempting to get on CNN as a counter
expert to Hassan with her stupid nitpicking of his 5 second sound
byte. I'm sure I spoilt her plans and disturbed her safe little pond
in Freedom of Mind. And now she's trying to cash in on the prone
restraint bandwagon. Perhaps she can establish herself as a expert on
something this way. Don't smother children to death! Very courageous
stance.
No. No axe to grind. I am simply amusing myself by pointing out her
self promotional hypocrisy.
Transremaxculver
> Monica Pignotti <monica.pignotti....@gmail.com> wrote:
> >As I predicted, you aren't interested in really learning anything
> >about this and don't seem to have even read what I wrote.
>
> Duh. Brilliant deduction of the learned Professor. If I were
> interested in finding out more about it I would have gone to the
> appropriate newsgroup to find out. Not a newsgroup devoted to
> scientology.
>
> > You have come into this discussion, not to learn about the
> >dangers of prone restraint, but to continue grinding your axe.
>
> Come to this discussion?? WTF, the discussion is of scientology, not
> child abuse.
>
poster who raised the issue (In an unsavoury fashion) rather than with
Monica.
> Professor Pigno loves to dismiss criticism with ad hom. "Axe to
> grind." I think not. I used to actually think that Miss Pignotti was
> a sensible critic who just made a habit of being a stupid contrarian.
> So I left a lot of her BS un rebutted. But I realized after months of
> her trashing inFormer Ministry, which has never charged anyone for any
> service or item, that she is a vindictive kook who is trying to make a
> name for herself by taking down others with an actual name and
> reputation. She was no doubt attempting to get on CNN as a counter
> expert to Hassan with her stupid nitpicking of his 5 second sound
> byte. I'm sure I spoilt her plans and disturbed her safe little pond
> in Freedom of Mind.
That just sounds like you have a specific issue with her on a specific
topic, which prehaps you should address directly rather than obliquely
this way.
> And now she's trying to cash in on the prone
> restraint bandwagon. Perhaps she can establish herself as a expert on
> something this way. Don't smother children to death! Very courageous
> stance.
>
Even if this were true which I doubt, there is no logical connection
between the issues you cite above and the issue which you now involve
yourself here. It seems to me that you are unable to recognise and
account for your emotional reaction to Monica, and how this colours
your view of an issue which is not so simplistic as you have again
demonstrated that you think it to be.
If it were as simple as you imply, then it would not be an issue in
the first place, and the USA would not be lagging behind on this
issue. Although the exact figures are hard to get hold of, several
children die in the US every year in restraints, in the UK (Prone
restraint not used) there have been no deaths for 5 years. So lives
are being lost unnecessarily.
> No. No axe to grind. I am simply amusing myself by pointing out her
> self promotional hypocrisy.
>
Again there is nothing wrong with self promotion, Beethoven and
Einstein were masters at it, so all you do is put her in good company.
Monica Pignotti
media appearances whatsoever to do with Scientology. Dennis seems to
have me confused with Steve Hassan. Look at Steve Hassan's website
with testimonials and repeated phone numbers to call for services,
fees he charges and actions and look at mine. I have turned down
invitations to be on nationally televised programs such as O'Reilly
Factor and just last week, I turned down an invitation to interview
with a local news station on Scientology. That was not my motivation
at all when I called Steve Hassan out on his inaccurate statements.
Dennis doesn't know me at all if he thinks I want to go on the media
and talk about Scientology. That's the last thing on earth I want to
do. I stopped doing that around 15 years ago, but continue to get
calls to this day with offers that I constantly turn down.
Interesting too how Dennis participates in this discussion and then
when I have him backed into a corner where he is unable to refute me
and has shown little interest to look at the facts I have pointed out
to him, slams me for being off topic when I didn't start this thread
in the first place. Dennis is obviously not interested in learning
about this topic. If he were, he would at least look at the material I
referenced and have some kind of thoughtful comment about it that
demonstrated he had actually read what I was saying, rather than
completely distorting my message. Again, of course I am fully aware
that no one wants to smother children. Duh. The controversy is over
whether prone restraints can be safe or if they should be banned.
I have no intention of "cashing in". I have made absolutely no money
from the "prone restraint" controversy nor have I tried to and there
are already plenty of experts in that area. In fact it has cost me
thousands in defending a lawsuit. Interesting that you have some kind
of ridiculous notion that I am out for money, when it is your friend,
Steve Hassan who charges $2500 a day, plus $100 per hour on weekdays
and $200 per hour on weekends just to sit on a plane and travel time,
plus extra for weekends and holidays. Although he refused to post his
fees on his own website, someone else has posted them and I can verify
from my own experience working with Steve and from people who have
recently worked with him, that to the best of my knowledge, these fees
are correct: Someone commented that this could easily amount to
$20,000 for an intervention and they are correct.
http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/jw/friends/207990/1/Steve-Hassan-Professional-Fees
Now come again, who is being self-promotional? Just how is it that
people like Steve Hassan can make all this money with fewer
credentials than I have and deosn't get called out on it, yet I am
barely able to make ends meet and get slammed for self-promotion and
being out to "cash in". That is ludicrous. Steven Hassan makes more in
one ordinary work day ($2500) than I sometimes can make in an entire
month, doing work that has absolutely nothing to do with prone
restraints or anything cult-related, I can assure you.
And no, I never considered the "Freedom of Mind" list serv a "safe
little pond". Far from it, Tensions had been building between Steve
and I and Cathleen and Steve for years. Many people who had, had
fallings out previously with Steve tried to warn me about Steve and I
defended him for years. No more. Tensions had been building for us for
a long time, especially when he remarked to me that he liked me better
before I got involved with research and evidence based practice.
However, his bringing Dennis onto the list serv to have a discussion
with Steve that Steve felt he was above having with me directly, was
the last straw. Many people on the list commented on how Steve rarely
participated in discussions and were very disappointed in that. The
only time he participated, with few rare exceptions. were to promote
his media appearances or his practice.
Dennis obviously has no clue. I wasn't going to get into this, but
since Dennis made a number of false statements about me, I have the
right to refute them and set the record straight. His agenda and bias
against me is all too obvious. I have to say in all honesty, I have
never encountered anyone who holds a grudge as long and persistently
as Dennis does and for what? Because I dared to disagree with Steve
Hassan and later him, about something that was said on CNN. Had Dennis
not come on here and posted about it, I never would have. I would have
let it go.
On Jun 8, 6:32 pm, Dennis Erlich <infor...@informer.org> wrote:
Monica Pignotti
wrote:
> Even if this were true which I doubt, there is no logical connection
> between the issues you cite above and the issue which you now involve
> yourself here. It seems to me that you are unable to recognise and
> account for your emotional reaction to Monica, and how this colours
> your view of an issue which is not so simplistic as you have again
> demonstrated that you think it to be.
That is a spot on assessment of exactly what is going on. Several
people have tried to gently point this out to him, but he either has
very poor insight into his own behavior or doesn't care. Silly me for
trying to have a rational discussion with him on this topic when he
has no intention of doing anything but finding ways to attack me and
all because of a list serv disagreement that occurred two and a half
years ago where I dared to disagree with a statement Steven Hassan
made to CNN.
There was one thing I found highly amusing, though, about Dennis'
latest response. He actually considers usenet a reliable source of
information. I've looked at the relevant usenet groups and have found
very little other than spam and smear campaign postings on them and
nothing on this topic. I get my information from library database
searches and government and legal documents, not usenet.
Dennis Erlich
> He actually considers usenet a reliable source of
>information. I've looked at the relevant usenet groups and have found
>very little other than spam and smear campaign postings on them and
>nothing on this topic.
So she chooses our little newsgroup to spam her self-promotional
material. All the while claiming ...
WE'RE NOT WORTHY!
D
Transremaxculver
> Monica Pignotti <monica.pignotti....@gmail.com> wrote:
> > He actually considers usenet a reliable source of
> >information. I've looked at the relevant usenet groups and have found
> >very little other than spam and smear campaign postings on them and
> >nothing on this topic.
>
> So she chooses our little newsgroup to spam her self-promotional
> material. All the while claiming ...
>
> WE'RE NOT WORTHY!
> D
She's a Phd, not one of Misscabbages cronies.
John Dorsay
> No. No axe to grind. I am simply amusing myself by pointing out her
> self promotional hypocrisy.
You know, I try really hard not to take sides in the quarrel between
you and Monica. FWIW, you are right at the top of "ars participants
that I would like to have a beer with" (aptiwlthabw for those who
enjoy acronyms). But I think you are naive about the health care
system, and and I think that naivete contributes to your animosity
towards Monica.
I guarantee that Monica's vocal criticism of abusive "treatment"
antagonizes more people than kooks like Federici. There are
entrenched authorities in the educational, treatment, and legal
communities who are threatened by criticism from people like Monica.
If Monica is anything, she is self-demotional. The entrenched
authorities do *not* want to confront the issues she raises, because
they have long been complicit in the abuse she is exposing.
While it is a relatively recent development (ie since she abandoned
TFT), Monica has become a vocal advocate of evidence-based
treatment. I have long advocated the same thing, but I'm just a
noisy guy with some basic critical thinking skills. Monica has a
legitimate PhD and she has achieved real credibility within the
academic community that influences both legal and public perception.
Both need to change before the abuse Monica and others decry will
ever be eliminated. Monica is trying to influence that. That is a
Good Thing, regardless of whether or not you consider it on-topic
for ars.
Unfortunately, as long as the courts and uncritical corners of
academia are willing to accept people like Federici as experts, Joe
Public is going to assume that they know what they are talking
about. The courts, the academics, and Joe Public, are wrong.
The reality is that abusive credentialed quacks promise easy
solutions to difficult problems, and Joe Public assumes that the
they can't possibly be abusive quacks because abusive quacks
couldn't possibly be credentialed. Many years ago, several years
*before* you were raided, I had the misfortune of working with an
abusive credentialed quack in Canada. My complaints about him
eventually drew the attention of the Toronto CCHR (who decided the
quack-in-question *must* have either been a psychiatrist or
supported by psychiatrists when in fact the opposite was true), and
one thing led to another and I'm still here.
My abusive credentialed quack, like Federici, did not understand
that RESTRAINT IS NOT TREATMENT. Restraint is by definition coercive
and nonconsensual. Treatment is neither. There is no reasonable
definition of treatment that includes restraint in any form, even
without the risks associated with prone restraint. Note that I am
not suggesting restraint is never appropriate. But I am stating that
restraint is absolutely *never* treatment, no exceptions. Without
even considering the recognized risks of prone restraint.
Monica has been dragged through the courts for taking a principled
stand against Federici and people like him, who want people to
believe that coercive, nonconsensual restraint *is* treatment. You
of all people here must surely understand the impact that the whole
legal process has on one's life. You *must* know that there is much
more to this than responses to a few kook posts on ars. Monica is
not engaging in self-promotion, at least not now. Anything but.
Monica has been trying to look beyond your longstanding animosity.
Please try to do the same.
John
Dennis Erlich
Pignotti keeps spamming here. Thanks for the simple elucidation John.
I agree with all the salient points you made except about Monica.
I'm not bothered at all by her challenging a dangerous practice. I'm
bothered by the fact that she thinks so little of usenet and ars in
general, and yet continues posting off-topic rebuttals here to stuff
no one reads anyway. She says she's looked at the on-topic newsgroups
and found them lacking in substance. So why TF doesn't she put her
important content into them and make them a useful source of info. She
thinks ars was an important source of information on the cult before I
arrived? No. She needs to do the effing work and quit putting down
the newgroup, while continuing to spam it with off-topic posts. No,
John. She chose to spam up ars with her crusade. Let her take her
good works (if any) to the appropriate newsgroup and stick to the
subject of scientology here.
Besides, she's a raging hypocrite and I intend to point out her
obvious hypocrisy which she displays generally in every post.
John Dorsay <restim...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 6/8/2011 6:32 PM, Dennis Erlich wrote:
>> No. No axe to grind. I am simply amusing myself by pointing out her
>> self promotional hypocrisy.
>
>You know, I try really hard not to take sides in the quarrel between
>you and Monica. FWIW, you are right at the top of "ars participants
>that I would like to have a beer with" (aptiwlthabw for those who
>enjoy acronyms). But I think you are naive about the health care
>system, and and I think that naivete contributes to your animosity
>towards Monica.
John, I'm sure that more children are killed or injured by not wearing
their seatbelts than by prone restraint. But that doesn't mean I want
to see bunches of seat-belt post in ars either.
Dennis Erlich
> The entrenched
>authorities do *not* want to confront the issues she raises, because
>they have long been complicit in the abuse she is exposing.
That may very well be true, John. But remember, restraining
out-of-control children (or people in society for that matter) is as
old as humans. If practitioners consider it a "treatment" rather than
a temporary solution to a potentially destructive person, that's a bit
strange to me. But it still could make sense. So where's the massive
other side to the argument which the establishment supposedly is
defending against Monica's <snicker> whistleblowing.
There must be another side to the argument. I don't want to have to
be the one to take it tho. So why not post her shit to the
appropriate newsgroup and see if it adds any actual CONTENT to usenet.
I submit she's detracting from the on topic content here with her
stupid rebuttals to unseen troll posts, all the while putting the
newsgroup and usenet in general down, down, down.
That's hypocrisy to me.
Kat
> John Dorsay <restimula...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > The entrenched
> >authorities do *not* want to confront the issues she raises, because
> >they have long been complicit in the abuse she is exposing.
>
> That may very well be true, John. But remember, restraining
> out-of-control children (or people in society for that matter) is as
> old as humans. If practitioners consider it a "treatment" rather than
> a temporary solution to a potentially destructive person, that's a bit
> strange to me. But it still could make sense. So where's the massive
> other side to the argument which the establishment supposedly is
> defending against Monica's <snicker> whistleblowing.
Were this anyone else but Monica, would you even care enough about the
issue to play devil's advocate?
>
> There must be another side to the argument. I don't want to have to
> be the one to take it tho. So why not post her shit to the
> appropriate newsgroup and see if it adds any actual CONTENT to usenet.
> I submit she's detracting from the on topic content here with her
> stupid rebuttals to unseen troll posts, all the while putting the
> newsgroup and usenet in general down, down, down.
Cause, you know the 6+ months of her not answering the trolls did
soooooooooooooo much to stop them /eyeroll. While this issue IS off
topic, this is the same crap that the cult of Scientology does to it's
critics. Do you blame the critics of scientology when they are Fair
Gamed?
John Dorsay
> John, I'm sure that more children are killed or injured by not wearing
> their seatbelts than by prone restraint. But that doesn't mean I want
> to see bunches of seat-belt post in ars either.
Fair enough. But I am not aware of an organized anti-seatbelt lobby
claiming that children will be saved by not wearing their seatbelts.
As I said, I have direct experience with abusive, credentialed
quacks. My abusive credentialed quack had organized naive families
to lobby for government funding to financially support his abuse.
Many people like Monica tried to raise public awareness, and to goad
the health authorities into taking action to protect the victims of
his abuse, but to no avail. By a complete fluke, I happened to work
with the abusive credentialed quack, and I also happened to be a
casual acquaintance of one of the closest advisers to the provincial
premier of the day. I contacted my acquaintance, who knew me well
enough to take my descriptions of the abuse I witnessed seriously,
and the abusive credentialed quack was soon out of business.
But *many* people who should have been much more able than I to get
the government's ear tried and failed to do so. It was *only*
because of the fluke of a personal connection that I succeeded where
they had tried and failed. If not for that fluke, I believe the
quack would have built a large and lucrative business that did
little more than abuse vulnerable people behind closed doors, beyond
the scrutiny of the authorities and with the naive support of
desperate families.
Unfortunately, this is not an exceptional story. Abusive
credentialed quacks prey on desperate families and vulnerable
individuals. The stories are as disgusting as the worst of the cult.
Remember Raoul Lopez?
There is a whole government-sanctioned "health-care" industry in the
US and Canada which consists of people like Federici exploiting
desperate families of vulnerable individuals. There is a
particularly disgusting subgroup that preys on the severely
autistic. Some search terms that will give you a taste are "Matthew
Isreal", BRI, IARET. People like Israel are attempting to gain broad
government sanction and funding for something they call "Applied
Behavior Analysis". The presentation of ABA is quite benign. In some
cases ABA might even be useful, I don't know enough about it to say
that this is never the case. But at the end of the day ABA is the
justification for atrocities such as this. http://tinyurl.com/65alj4t
http://www.bostonmagazine.com/scripts/print/article.php?asset_idx=231327
Please don't misunderstand me. I am not defending Monica personally,
nor am I taking her side in your quarrel with her. But I am
supporting the stance she has taken against Federici. You obviously
don't have to agree. But, just as you are free to express your views
on the matter, I am free to express mine. And I am quite sure we
agree about that :)
John
Monica Pignotti
> On 6/9/2011 12:24 AM, Dennis Erlich wrote:
>
> > John, I'm sure that more children are killed or injured by not wearing
> > their seatbelts than by prone restraint. But that doesn't mean I want
> > to see bunches of seat-belt post in ars either.
>
> Fair enough. But I am not aware of an organized anti-seatbelt lobby
> claiming that children will be saved by not wearing their seatbelts.
Yes, exactly. Once again, Dennis could say the same thing about
Scientology. There are far more people killed from not wearing
seatbelts than from Scientology. Does that mean that it is not a valid
cause to speak out against? I doubt he would think so. It seems to me
he is being very selective here and just doesn't want to believe that
I just might be doing something of value here. And yes, the organized
lobby for not banning prone restraints does have a vested interest.
There is a whole industry built up around these so-called safety
containment trainings.
>
> As I said, I have direct experience with abusive, credentialed
> quacks. My abusive credentialed quack had organized naive families
> to lobby for government funding to financially support his abuse.
> Many people like Monica tried to raise public awareness, and to goad
> the health authorities into taking action to protect the victims of
> his abuse, but to no avail. By a complete fluke, I happened to work
> with the abusive credentialed quack, and I also happened to be a
> casual acquaintance of one of the closest advisers to the provincial
> premier of the day. I contacted my acquaintance, who knew me well
> enough to take my descriptions of the abuse I witnessed seriously,
> and the abusive credentialed quack was soon out of business.
That's very good to know. Congratulations.
> But *many* people who should have been much more able than I to get
> the government's ear tried and failed to do so.
That's very true. Here in the US there were many parents of autistic
children who were lobbying to get prone restraints banned in schools
by the passage of the Keeping Students Safe Act, which so far has
failed to pass. As a result, children are still being prone restrained
in schools in many states and some are being injured and deaths have
continued. As for private therapists, they are still free to do
whatever they please. The only law even close to banning this is
Candace's Law in Colorado, but all it does is ban rebirthing therapy,
not other forms of restraint. It does not ban the prone restraint
proposed by Federici in his self-published book.
>It was *only*
> because of the fluke of a personal connection that I succeeded where
> they had tried and failed. If not for that fluke, I believe the
> quack would have built a large and lucrative business that did
> little more than abuse vulnerable people behind closed doors, beyond
> the scrutiny of the authorities and with the naive support of
> desperate families.
>
> Unfortunately, this is not an exceptional story. Abusive
> credentialed quacks prey on desperate families and vulnerable
> individuals. The stories are as disgusting as the worst of the cult.
> Remember Raoul Lopez?
Very true. At least with Scientology, no one is credentialed or
licensed and so it is seen for what it is by all but the true
believers. What is particularly of concern is that many of the people
using these dangerous techniques are licensed and all too often their
boards seem to be looking the other way. This is a classic example of
a real-life Milgrim experiment, obedience to authority and anyone who
questions this gets hit with a smear campaign (I am not the only one,
just look at the smear campaign against others who have spoken out --
Federici sued 5 people and a non-profit). The good news, if there is
any, is that there is a growing awareness in the mental health
profession that self-proclaimed therapy gurus who believe they are
above question, are not any longer and are increasingly being
challenged. Federici is far from being the only one this applies to.
> There is a whole government-sanctioned "health-care" industry in the
> US and Canada which consists of people like Federici exploiting
> desperate families of vulnerable individuals. There is a
> particularly disgusting subgroup that preys on the severely
> autistic. Some search terms that will give you a taste are "Matthew
> Isreal", BRI, IARET. People like Israel are attempting to gain broad
> government sanction and funding for something they call "Applied
> Behavior Analysis". The presentation of ABA is quite benign. In some
> cases ABA might even be useful, I don't know enough about it to say
> that this is never the case. But at the end of the day ABA is the
> justification for atrocities such as this.http://tinyurl.com/65alj4t
>
> http://www.bostonmagazine.com/scripts/print/article.php?asset_idx=231327
>
> Please don't misunderstand me. I am not defending Monica personally,
> nor am I taking her side in your quarrel with her. But I am
> supporting the stance she has taken against Federici. You obviously
> don't have to agree. But, just as you are free to express your views
> on the matter, I am free to express mine. And I am quite sure we
> agree about that :)
Fair enough. Thank you for being smart enough to give the validity of
this cause priority over any other disagreements or conflicts we might
have had, as well it should be.
Monica Pignotti
> On Jun 9, 12:49 am, Dennis Erlich <infor...@informer.org> wrote:
>
> > John Dorsay <restimula...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > The entrenched
> > >authorities do *not* want to confront the issues she raises, because
> > >they have long been complicit in the abuse she is exposing.
>
> > That may very well be true, John. But remember, restraining
> > out-of-control children (or people in society for that matter) is as
> > old as humans. If practitioners consider it a "treatment" rather than
> > a temporary solution to a potentially destructive person, that's a bit
> > strange to me. But it still could make sense. So where's the massive
> > other side to the argument which the establishment supposedly is
> > defending against Monica's <snicker> whistleblowing.
>
> Were this anyone else but Monica, would you even care enough about the
> issue to play devil's advocate?
Yes, exactly, Kat. He wouldn't give it a second thought, were this
anyone else.
> > There must be another side to the argument. I don't want to have to
> > be the one to take it tho. So why not post her shit to the
> > appropriate newsgroup and see if it adds any actual CONTENT to usenet.
> > I submit she's detracting from the on topic content here with her
> > stupid rebuttals to unseen troll posts, all the while putting the
> > newsgroup and usenet in general down, down, down.
>
> Cause, you know the 6+ months of her not answering the trolls did
> soooooooooooooo much to stop them /eyeroll. While this issue IS off
> topic, this is the same crap that the cult of Scientology does to it's
> critics. Do you blame the critics of scientology when they are Fair
> Gamed?
Dennis might be interesting to know that I carefully reviewed the
other side to the argument and had a thoughtful discussion of its
merits. This only goes to show that he is jumping to unwarranted
conclusions without ever having actually read my blog and the
arguments I have presented.
Monica Pignotti
> > The entrenched
> >authorities do *not* want to confront the issues she raises, because
> >they have long been complicit in the abuse she is exposing.
>
> That may very well be true, John. But remember, restraining
> out-of-control children (or people in society for that matter) is as
> old as humans. If practitioners consider it a "treatment" rather than
> a temporary solution to a potentially destructive person, that's a bit
> strange to me. But it still could make sense. So where's the massive
> other side to the argument which the establishment supposedly is
> defending against Monica's <snicker> whistleblowing.
>
> There must be another side to the argument.
This proves you have not read my blog and are jumping to unwarranted
conclusions that support your intent to attack me. My style is to
intentionally seek out the very best arguments from the "other side"
and discuss that. I did that on my blog. I presented the very best
arguments in favor of not banning prone restraints.
>I don't want to have to be the one to take it tho.
>So why not post her shit to the
> appropriate newsgroup and see if it adds any actual CONTENT to usenet.
We've been through this before. You seem to be about 15 years out of
date of you think meaningful discussions on topics like this still
occur on usenet. Usenet is not where these kinds of things usually get
thoughtful discussions. The "appropriate" newsgroups are full of spam
and do not discuss this topic. I have discussed it on many other
forums on the internet.
> I submit she's detracting from the on topic content here with her
> stupid rebuttals to unseen troll posts, all the while putting the
> newsgroup and usenet in general down, down, down.
It's not a matter of putting usenet down. It's recognition of the
facts at hand that anyone who looks at usenet can readily see. It is
not the place to have a meaningful discussions anymore. My repeated
attempts to have them with you are a case in point.
Monica Pignotti
> Gee, an actual cohesive post on the off-topic subject Professor
> Pignotti keeps spamming here. Thanks for the simple elucidation John.
> I agree with all the salient points you made except about Monica.
>
> I'm not bothered at all by her challenging a dangerous practice. I'm
> bothered by the fact that she thinks so little of usenet and ars in
> general, and yet continues posting off-topic rebuttals here to stuff
> no one reads anyway. She says she's looked at the on-topic newsgroups
> and found them lacking in substance. So why TF doesn't she put her
> important content into them and make them a useful source of info. She
> thinks ars was an important source of information on the cult before I
> arrived? No. She needs to do the effing work and quit putting down
> the newgroup, while continuing to spam it with off-topic posts. No,
> John. She chose to spam up ars with her crusade. Let her take her
> good works (if any) to the appropriate newsgroup and stick to the
> subject of scientology here.
>
> Besides, she's a raging hypocrite and I intend to point out her
> obvious hypocrisy which she displays generally in every post.
>
> >On 6/8/2011 6:32 PM, Dennis Erlich wrote:
> >> No. No axe to grind. I am simply amusing myself by pointing out her
> >> self promotional hypocrisy.
>
> >You know, I try really hard not to take sides in the quarrel between
> >you and Monica. FWIW, you are right at the top of "ars participants
> >that I would like to have a beer with" (aptiwlthabw for those who
> >enjoy acronyms). But I think you are naive about the health care
> >system, and and I think that naivete contributes to your animosity
> >towards Monica.
>
> John, I'm sure that more children are killed or injured by not wearing
> their seatbelts than by prone restraint. But that doesn't mean I want
> to see bunches of seat-belt post in ars either.
Repeatedly calling me a "hypocrite" is about the only form of rebuttal
Dennis knows. It's called the Tu Quoque fallacy which is a form of ad
hominem. I am actually consistently practicing what I preach. No one,
in my view, is above valid criticism, whether it be Steven Hassan or
Ronald Federici or any other so-called "expert". You seem to think I
am a hypocrite because I object to the extremely virulent personal
attacks that have been leveled against me, many of them containing
complete fabrications. That is very different from my asking you very
valid questions about your ministerial credentials. The fact you
cannot seem to see the difference speaks volumes. I am not a therapy
guru and I openly invite anyone to challenge me on my actual ideas and
if they want proof of my credentials, I will gladly provide it. If you
want to discuss with me the best arguments in favor of not banning
prone restraint, I will be glad to discuss these with you. I have
carefully examined them.
Of course, I don't put Steve Hassan in the same category Federici as
far as my depth of concern over practices, but what they do have in
common is that both seem to feel that they are above challenge and
actually having discussions with critics and both are claiming that
their approaches are effective and superior to other approaches when
there is no published research comparing their approaches to other
existing approaches, to support that. For example, there is no
evidence that Steve Hassan is any more successful as an exit counselor
than Rick Ross, Carol Giambalvo or the others, nor is there any
evidence that his post-cult therapy is any more successful than that
of other therapists. In fact, there is no evidence that people who go
to a "cult expert" therapist are any better off than those who do not.
Steve Hassan's claims are based on his "experience" and I challenge
that.
Talk about hypocrisy for a cult expert and the self-proclaimed
America's Leading Exit Counselor who couldn't seem to deal with my
simple questions and challenges, but had to bring in Dennis Erlich to
attack me (this is according to the list serv moderator).
Monica Pignotti
> On 6/8/2011 6:32 PM, Dennis Erlich wrote:
>
> > No. No axe to grind. I am simply amusing myself by pointing out her
> > self promotional hypocrisy.
>
> You know, I try really hard not to take sides in the quarrel between
> you and Monica. FWIW, you are right at the top of "ars participants
> that I would like to have a beer with" (aptiwlthabw for those who
> enjoy acronyms). But I think you are naive about the health care
> system, and and I think that naivete contributes to your animosity
> towards Monica.
>
> I guarantee that Monica's vocal criticism of abusive "treatment"
> antagonizes more people than kooks like Federici. There are
> entrenched authorities in the educational, treatment, and legal
> communities who are threatened by criticism from people like Monica.
> If Monica is anything, she is self-demotional.
You got it, John. Calling me "self-promotional" as Dennis has done is
ludicrous when I am obviously just the opposite. I have no illusions
about this. I have alienated a number of people. If I had wanted to
promote myself, I would have chosen a nice, safe area and kept my
mouth shut through graduate school. I have no doubt that some of my
criticisms, both on the internet and what I have published, have upset
a number of people. I do it because for the good of the profession and
for the public good, there are people who need to be challenged and it
if upsets them, too bad.
>The entrenched
> authorities do *not* want to confront the issues she raises, because
> they have long been complicit in the abuse she is exposing.
Unfortunately, that's true. As Federici himself pointed out in the
recent litigation, some of the defendants tried to file complaints
with his state board, thus far, to no avail.
Thanks for trying, John. I doubt this will change his mind. I have
never seen anyone as perseverant as Dennis Erlich when he gets a bee
in his bonnet.
Dennis Erlich
>This proves you have not read my blog and are jumping to unwarranted
>conclusions that support your intent to attack me. My style is to
>intentionally seek out the very best arguments from the "other side"
>and discuss that. I did that on my blog. I presented the very best
>arguments in favor of not banning prone restraints.
Why tf would I go read about something that's off-topic to my
interests? I read this newsgroup because it interests me and I'm
knowledgeable on the subject. I have little to no interest in
Monica's campaign until it get's situated into the correct newsgroup.
Besides, I'm so sure she presented the "very best arguments" on the
other side, just as she did when she attacked Hassan over the word
"any" in his 10 second CNN statement. Or when she trashed me
personally and my ministry rather than admit that she was wrong about
his statement.
Somehow I don't trust her to present the other side properly.
John Dorsay
> John Dorsay<restim...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The entrenched
>>authorities do *not* want to confront the issues she raises, because
>>they have long been complicit in the abuse she is exposing.
>
> That may very well be true, John. But remember, restraining
> out-of-control children (or people in society for that matter) is as
> old as humans. If practitioners consider it a "treatment" rather than
> a temporary solution to a potentially destructive person, that's a bit
> strange to me. But it still could make sense.
Strange to me too. But it is also true. It's how Matthew Israel
started out. From the article I linked to in a previous post:
"On July 17, 1981, at BRI's sister school in Northridge, California,
staffers restrained 14-year-old Danny Aswad face-down on his bed.
Aswad died in that position. The autopsy report concluded that he
died of natural causes, but the state of California placed the
school on a two-year probation anyway. In 1982, the state's
Department of Social Services filed a 63-page legal complaint
alleging abuse at the school. The complaint claimed, among other
things, that BRI withheld meals; showed staff how to hide students'
injuries from regulatory agencies; and, strangely, encouraged
students to act out for a film crew, the footage to be used later to
demonstrate how the children had behaved before BRI. Later that year
the state reached a settlement with BRI in California. The school
couldn't use anything more punishing than a water spray. The state
also forbade Israel—who says he'd turned over control of the campus
before Aswad's death—from stepping foot on the Northridge property.
But this, too, was not the worst of it."
It gets *much* worse. I think this article should be required
reading for anyone who thinks Monica's criticisms are out of line.
Be forewarned. It's long. And it's scary. And it's depressing. And
it's true. http://tinyurl.com/65alj4t
http://www.bostonmagazine.com/scripts/print/article.php?asset_idx=231327
John
John Dorsay
> It gets *much* worse. I think this article should be required
> reading for anyone who thinks Monica's criticisms are out of line.
> Be forewarned. It's long. And it's scary. And it's depressing. And
> it's true. http://tinyurl.com/65alj4t
>
> http://www.bostonmagazine.com/scripts/print/article.php?asset_idx=231327
I should add that there is a fatal error in the author's attempt to
end the article with a balanced summary. He cherry-picks successes.
There is not, to the best of my knowledge, any well-designed
research showing that positive outcomes such as those described at
the end of the article are anything more than anecdotal support.
Same with Federici et al.
John
Monica Pignotti
> On 6/9/2011 10:02 AM, John Dorsay wrote:
>
> > It gets *much* worse. I think this article should be required
> > reading for anyone who thinks Monica's criticisms are out of line.
> > Be forewarned. It's long. And it's scary. And it's depressing. And
>
> >http://www.bostonmagazine.com/scripts/print/article.php?asset_idx=231327
>
> I should add that there is a fatal error in the author's attempt to
> end the article with a balanced summary. He cherry-picks successes.
> There is not, to the best of my knowledge, any well-designed
> research showing that positive outcomes such as those described at
> the end of the article are anything more than anecdotal support.
>
> Same with Federici et al.
Yes, but this is more mainstream, unfortunately. The Judge Rotenberg
Center is a shameful blemish on the mental health profession indeed,
in my opinion and yet they are supported by the mainstream and even
have promotional booths at conferences put on by prominent
professional organizations. I was at such a conference a few years ago
and stopped by their booth, which handed out glossy brochures that
show a lovely residential center and hand out free pens, rather than
the discuss the shock machines. What this center is doing goes against
everything the ethical practice of behavior analysis stands for in my
opinion. They do use the same form of argumentation and
rationalizations that Federici, Heather Forbes and their supporters
use, though, that they are doing these cruel practices out of "love"
ignoring the fact that there is no good evidence that they even work.
There is some good news, though about this. Recently, the founder of
Judge Rotenberg Center was forced to resign:
http://motherjones.com/blue-marble/2011/05/judge-rotenberg-forced-resign-school-shocks
I hope this is the end of this dreadful institution.
John Dorsay
> What this center is doing goes against
> everything the ethical practice of behavior analysis stands for in my
Maybe it's changed since I encountered the abusive credentialed
quack I mentioned previously. That was before Lovaas renounced the
nastiness (which I did not even know had happened until I read this
article), and I have not followed it much since.
However, at that time, several academic champions of ABA formed an
organization with the harmless-sounding name of the International
Association for the Right to Effective Treatment (IARET), which you
can read about at
http://www.autcom.org/articles/EffectiveTreatment.html if you are
not familiar with it.
"Research" justifying abuse was little more than smoke and mirrors.
When I started reading it, my first thought was of an old Consumer
Reports comment describing the "research" denying the dangers of
tobacco. I felt like I was walking through a hall of mirrors. The
same few "researchers" always referenced the same few articles from
each other. Results were praised and blindly accepted without even
minimal scrutiny of experimental design, never mind any attempts to
replicate. But it met a loose definition of peer-review, so it was
accepted by people who did not understand that the procedures used
by these guys were intended to inflict pain.
> opinion. They do use the same form of argumentation and
> rationalizations that Federici, Heather Forbes and their supporters
> use, though, that they are doing these cruel practices out of "love"
> ignoring the fact that there is no good evidence that they even work.
Yeah.
John
John Dorsay
> On 6/9/2011 11:24 AM, Monica Pignotti wrote:
>> What this center is doing goes against
>> everything the ethical practice of behavior analysis stands for in my
>
> Maybe it's changed since I encountered the abusive credentialed
> quack I mentioned previously. That was before Lovaas renounced the
> nastiness (which I did not even know had happened until I read this
> article), and I have not followed it much since.
Evidently little if anything has changed. According to The Behavior
Analysis Association of Michigan, "An individual is entitled to
effective and scientifically validated treatment. In turn, behavior
analysts have an obligation to use only those techniques that have
been demonstrated by researchers to be effective, to acquaint
consumers and the public with the advantages and disadvantages of
these techniques, and to search continuously for the most optimal
means of changing behavior" which is right out of the IARET handbook.
BAAM:
http://www.baam.emich.edu/baammiscpages/BAAMrights.htm
IARET:
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?artid=1286137&blobtype=pdf
Welcome to the hall of mirrors.
John
Rev. T.A. Krlll
> Why tf would I go read about something that's off-topic to my
> interests? I read this newsgroup because it interests me and I'm
> knowledgeable on the subject.
What subject is that Reverend? The cultivation and trafficking of
illegal schedule 1 narcotics? Since you signed away your rights to
criticize Scientology, L. Ron Hubbard, and David Miscavige - for money;
you are not under contract to not talk about your narcotics syndicate
are you?
--
"... Where as many of us at one time idolized your fight against the
cult, these days we see how much of a sham you are." - Yaakov, a high
school teacher, to Rev. Dennis Erlich of the inFormer Ministry
[marijuana] Collective (May 15, 2011).
http://www.flickr.com/photos/62112837@N06/5794356757/in/photostream/
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Informer-Ministry-Collective/104999406226397
Monica Pignotti
>
> Welcome to the hall of mirrors.
I don't know about that organization. The behavior analysts I know
focus on positive reinforcement and are completely repulsed by the
misuse of behavioral analysis as punishment of the kinds used by the
Rotenberg Center. They use positive reinforcement first and if they do
use punishment, it would be something like a time out or taking away a
reward, not physically invasive punishments like electro shocks.
They are certified by this organization:
The ones I know don't use the kinds of punishments that are used at
the Rotenberg Center.
John Dorsay
>> IARET:http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?artid=1286137&blobtyp...
>>
>> Welcome to the hall of mirrors.
>
> I don't know about that organization. The behavior analysts I know
> focus on positive reinforcement and are completely repulsed by the
> misuse of behavioral analysis as punishment of the kinds used by the
> Rotenberg Center. They use positive reinforcement first and if they do
> use punishment, it would be something like a time out or taking away a
> reward, not physically invasive punishments like electro shocks.
>
> They are certified by this organization:
>
> http://www.bacb.com/
This is behavior analyst doubletalk to justify aversives. It's right
out of IARET's position statement.
http://www.bacb.com/index.php?page=57
2.10 Treatment Efficacy.
(a) The behavior analyst always has the responsibility to recommend
scientifically supported most effective treatment procedures.
Effective treatment procedures have been validated as having both
long-term and short-term benefits to clients and society.
(b) Clients have a right to effective treatment (i.e., based on the
research literature and adapted to the individual client).
> The ones I know don't use the kinds of punishments that are used at
> the Rotenberg Center.
Are you saying they use different punishments, or are you saying
they don't use punishments at all? If the latter, they are probably
violating their "Treatment Efficacy" standard. If you have the
chance, please ask them about their views on the use of aversives,
what they think about their certifying organization's position, and
where do they draw the line if they think aversives are sometimes
acceptable. I'm curious. And you might be surprised by their answers.
John
Monica Pignotti
> Monica Pignotti <monica.pignotti....@gmail.com> wrote:
> >This proves you have not read my blog and are jumping to unwarranted
> >conclusions that support your intent to attack me. My style is to
> >intentionally seek out the very best arguments from the "other side"
> >and discuss that. I did that on my blog. I presented the very best
> >arguments in favor of not banning prone restraints.
>
> Why tf would I go read about something that's off-topic to my
> interests? I read this newsgroup because it interests me and I'm
> knowledgeable on the subject. I have little to no interest in
Then why participate in the discussion in the first place if you're
not interested? Come on, now. There are many off topic postings in
this NG that you say nothing about, but you focus exclusively on mine,
neglecting to take to task the people who originated the threads in
the first place. Clearly, it is not being off topic that is the
problem for you. If that were the case, the problem would easily be
solved by kill filing my name as others have done who don't want to
see it. But you know good and well it's not about that. It's about
your agenda to continuously attack me in any way you can rather than
discuss the topic at hand. Thanks for that admission. I feel sad for
you, Dennis, that your life is such that coming on here and attacking
an activist who is already the target of a massive internet smear
campaign, is what amuses and entertains you. What does that say about
you as a human being? I'll leave that to each person reading this to
decide.
> Monica's campaign until it get's situated into the correct newsgroup.
We've been through that a zillion times. There is no "correct
newsgroup" because little occurs on most newsgroups except spam and
flame wars. Again, you are way behind the times and act as if this is
still the 1990s when decent discussions did occur on usenet. Those
days are gone, Dennis. Most people have moved away from usenet to
various list servs and discussion boards. ARS is somewhat of an
exception to this because sometimes there are some decent discussions,
but that is getting more and more rare, even here.
> Besides, I'm so sure she presented the "very best arguments" on the
> other side, just as she did when she attacked Hassan over the word
> "any" in his 10 second CNN statement.
It was not an attack. It was a disagreement that he inappropriately
took personally when it was not a personal attack. It was a
disagreement with his statement. Instead of discussing it with me, he
refused to participate in the discussion and brought you in instead.
That is what I consider to be highly disrespectful behavior on his
part and I called him out on it. This is no different from what one
would encounter in a cult when the cult leader is challenged. In
contrast, the attacks on me have been very personal and not responsive
to the issues I raised.
>Or when she trashed me
> personally and my ministry rather than admit that she was wrong about
> his statement.
No, that was not personal. I asked you about your credentials. At
first you failed to respond, but then when Jim Martin pointed out that
my questions were valid, you finally answered them that your only
ministerial credentials come from Scientology and by your own
admission, you are still on file with the state of California "that
way". I was not "wrong" about Steve Hassan's statement. His statement
was inaccurate and I stand by that and I think when people make
statements like that to the media, they lose credibility because they
are so easy to refute by providing counter examples. This is why
people like Dr. Drew when they get the opportunity to interview ex-
cultists, warn them not to exaggerate. There are plenty of very real
things to expose about Scientology. No need to exaggerate and make
generalizations that are not valid.
> Somehow I don't trust her to present the other side properly.
Fine with me. You are ignorant on the topic at hand and are in no
position to judge anyway whether or not I have. My peer review system
has accepted a number of my writings for publication and so according
to them, I have.
Monica Pignotti
I'm saying that they first use positive reinforcement and only resort
to punishment if the positive stuff doesn't work, but even then, they
don't use the harmful punishments. They just use things like time outs
or taking away a privilege, which are punishments, but not abusive
ones. The kind of torture used at the Rotenberg Center is not
empirically supported.
John Dorsay
Well, the JRC has its own method of calculating empirical support.
In essence, it works like this.
1. Record the frequency of targeted undesired behaviors in a
controlled environment to establish a baseline.
2. Consequate targeted undesired behaviors.
3. Record the frequency of targeted undesired behaviors that occur
after the victim has associated the behavior with the consequence,
while the victim is aware of the possibility of further consequences.
4. If the frequency has not reduced, increase the severity of the
consequence and return to step 2.
5. Otherwise, claim empirical support.
Sorry if I'm sounding thick, Monica. I was careless with my use of
terminology. Punishment is a consequence that causes a behavior to
occur with less frequency. It can be negative (ie the withdrawal of
something, such as a reward), or positive (ie the addition of a
stimulus). Positive punishments are commonly known by their
proponents as aversives, and of course they are widely used at the
JRC. It sounds like the behavior analysts you know limit themselves
to negative punishments.
But positive punishments are a core component of behavior analysis,
and this is what the doubletalk from the bacb.com web page is
addressing. There are certainly far less extreme forms of positive
punishment than those used by the JRC, but they are still aversives,
and as far as I know lack any credible empirical support. Therefore
I take the perhaps extreme position that any form of positive
punishment is unacceptable. The bacb disagrees, and indeed the
standard I quoted requires behavior analysts to include positive
punishment in their repertoire. This is what I was talking about,
and why I was curious about the views of the behavior analysts you know.
John
Dennis Erlich
>It gets *much* worse. I think this article should be required
>reading for anyone who thinks Monica's criticisms are out of line.
The problem, John, is not with her criticisms. The problem is that
she is not really putting them here or anywhere else where they can be
rebutted by those "vested interests" who you claim are behind
continuing to injure children with restraint. All I see clogging up
ars are her stupid rebuttals to stupider accusations by people in my
killfile.
John Dorsay
> John Dorsay<restim...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>It gets *much* worse. I think this article should be required
>>reading for anyone who thinks Monica's criticisms are out of line.
>
> The problem, John, is not with her criticisms. The problem is that
> she is not really putting them here or anywhere else where they can be
> rebutted by those "vested interests" who you claim are behind
The vested interests are no different than in any other group. They
are driven by power and/or money. It costs a hell of a lot less to
employ one person to "treat" multiple patients by zapping the hell
out of them by remote control than it does to provide 1:1 or greater
staff/patient ratios. The math is real easy. And given the
reluctance of ethical practitioners to provide the same "treatment",
the lack of competition allows one to charge outrageously high
prices if one can dupe people into placing their loved ones in that
"care". Or, in jurisdictions like mine, where there are fixed
payment schedules, minimizing staffing costs maximizes profit.
> continuing to injure children with restraint. All I see clogging up
> ars are her stupid rebuttals to stupider accusations by people in my
> killfile.
I'm pretty sure Monica won't object if she has to share a spot in
your kill-file with her insane cyberstalkers. I'm just sayin'
The whole conversation has taken an interesting and timely turn for
me. We are approaching a provincial election here, and at least one
major party has shown an inclination to yield to lobbying to make
"applied behavior analysts" a regulated health profession.
I *know* what went on when behavior analysts got their hands on
vulnerable people 20 years ago, but I have been out of touch with
that community since then. In fact, I suspect if the internet had
been as established then as it is now, I would have enjoyed similar
attention to that shown Monica by her kook cyberstalkers, and for
precisely the same reasons. At that time, applied behavior analysts
used junk science to justify abuse of vulnerable people.
A lot can change in 20 years. I am curious about the current view of
aversives within the behavior analyst community, and I am also
curious about whether or not the junk science has been replaced by
evidence-based research.
Nothing I saw on the web encouraged me, but the web is not real
life. Monica knows some behavior analysts about whom she has
positive opinions. I'm really curious about whether or not behavior
analysis has changed. I'm hoping she'll be willing to ask a few
questions on my behalf and tell me her opinion. Anything she can
tell me will influence the direction I take in response to the local
lobbying.
So it's definitely on topic for me :)
John
Transremaxculver
That there is a 'group' which might claim this as their overarching
philosophy and a 'treatment model' alarms me considerably.
Behavioural analysis, is a step in a process. Usually specifically
applied where ordinary communication with an individual is limited or
difficult. Essentially a behavioural analysis, looks at what, unwanted
behaviours exist for a client, and what triggers an unwanted
behaviour. (There is also ongoing debate about what represents
'unwanted'. Without other 'steps' this at best leads to avoiding the
triggers. An actual treatment model is a very different thing, and
might vary considerably depending on what undesirable behaviours are
observed, and what actions trigger them. You might treat a 'phobic'
behaviour with a systematic desensitisation model, inappropriate
sexual expression, with an 'acceptable space' intervention.
Things can however get complicated. For instance self injury triggered
in the presence of a woman, would lead to a very different
intervention than self injury triggered by the presence of a man, not
specifically based on the issue of gender, but also on the issue of
gender balances in caring professions. And even then it would need to
be tuned specifically into what else was known about the client, their
age, and the possibilities for development, known experiences,
ambitions. All of which might be influenced by Cognitive behaviour
therapy, Kleinian psychotherapy, formal eclecticism, or theoretical
integrationist approaches, there are multiple treatment models,
behaviour analysis isn't one of them.
Sorry I know it's a bit of a rant, but 'behaviour analysis' as a
treatment model sounds like a fad, as a component of a more detailed
treatment regime, that's a different issue entirely.
Minor rant over.
Monica Pignotti
worked closely with are very much opposed to that sort of aversive,
regardless how some may have twisted interpretations of certain
things. I do share your concerns, though, about how some behavior
analysts are using it. Federici has two behavior analysts listed on
the letterhead of his response to the internet critics, who apparently
work with him and I have always wondered how they apply behavioral
analysis to his work, if they do.
http://www.drfederici.com/Response_to_Internet_Critics.pdf
This is the website of Deborah Greenwald, BCABA, one of the therapists
listed:
http://www.autismassociates.com/
So, if Deborah Greenwald is reading this and would like to join in
this conversation and respond, please do feel free to. I would be very
interested in what capacity she works with Ronald Federici and if she
has used the intervention recommended in his book.
Monica Pignotti
> John Dorsay <restimula...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >It gets *much* worse. I think this article should be required
> >reading for anyone who thinks Monica's criticisms are out of line.
>
> The problem, John, is not with her criticisms. The problem is that
> she is not really putting them here or anywhere else where they can be
> rebutted by those "vested interests" who you claim are behind
> continuing to injure children with restraint. All I see clogging up
> ars are her stupid rebuttals to stupider accusations by people in my
> killfile.
That is absolutely false. I have published my criticisms in peer
reviewed journals, the very best place for them to be rebutted by
anyone who cares to. I also have specific, very detailed criticisms on
this topic complete with valid references, on my blog that is open to
anyone who cares to read it:
http://phtherapies.wordpress.com/category/restraints/
You have said you are not interested in reading them and that's fine
with me but if you accuse of not posting my criticisms "anywhere"
else, that is demonstrably false.
Interesting that first you slam me for being off topic and now you are
slamming me for not posting my specific criticisms here to ARS when
actually my criticisms are contained in the links I have posted here
many times. It seems that no matter what I do, I cannot win with
Dennis.
Rev. T.A. Krlll
> On 6/8/2011 6:32 PM, Dennis Erlich wrote:
>> No. No axe to grind. I am simply amusing myself by pointing out her
>> self promotional hypocrisy.
>
> You know, I try really hard not to take sides in the quarrel between you
> and Monica. FWIW, you are right at the top of "ars participants that I
> would like to have a beer with" (aptiwlthabw for those who enjoy
> acronyms). But I think you are naive about the health care system, and
> and I think that naivete contributes to your animosity towards Monica.
>
> I guarantee that Monica's vocal criticism of abusive "treatment"
> antagonizes more people than kooks like Federici. There are entrenched
> authorities in the educational, treatment, and legal communities who are
> threatened by criticism from people like Monica. If Monica is anything,
> confront the issues she raises, because they have long been complicit in
> the abuse she is exposing.
>
Brilliantly spoken by a insufferably pretentious retired Litigation
Specialist for the Ontario Nurses Association, John d'Orsay. [Pictures
are coming].
John Dorsay
> Brilliantly spoken by a insufferably pretentious retired Litigation
> Specialist for the Ontario Nurses Association, John d'Orsay.
> [Pictures are coming].
Once again, Tom, I assure you that any time you spend cyberstalking
the John d'Orsay you mention above, is time you do not spend
cyberstalking me. I've invited you to my home several times, for
crying out loud. Do you think I am trying to hide something from
your cyber kook detective powerz? Like I said before, if you have
questions, just ask.
But first you should definitely chug a couple of six packs. As you
know, I am in Hamilton. When you go chasing my doppelgangers in
London or Toronto, it is clear you are not yet sober.
Glug glug glug,
John
Monica Pignotti
>
> So it's definitely on topic for me :)
>
textbook that was written by Eileen Gambrill that includes a chapter
where she discusses Behavior Analysis in great detail, including a
discussion of punishment and the use of aversives and how the research
is against that. She also gives very specific examples of how behavior
analysis is used, that are free of any of the abusive treatments she
strongly opposes. The author is also a known critic of pseudoscience
and proponent of evidence based practice and an expert on propaganda.
Unlike many texts on behavior analysis, her descriptions are clear and
easy to understand. Check out Chapter 7, which begins on p. 157 (the
section on punishment is on p. 166 where she has a good discussion on
its negative effects):
http://books.google.com/books?id=6NcAiVolw0wC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_atb#v=onepage&q&f=false
John Dorsay
> I just found a book available online through Google Books from a
> textbook that was written by Eileen Gambrill that includes a chapter
> where she discusses Behavior Analysis in great detail, including a
> discussion of punishment and the use of aversives and how the research
> is against that. She also gives very specific examples of how behavior
> analysis is used, that are free of any of the abusive treatments she
> strongly opposes. The author is also a known critic of pseudoscience
> and proponent of evidence based practice and an expert on propaganda.
> Unlike many texts on behavior analysis, her descriptions are clear and
> easy to understand. Check out Chapter 7, which begins on p. 157 (the
> section on punishment is on p. 166 where she has a good discussion on
> its negative effects):
>
> http://books.google.com/books?id=6NcAiVolw0wC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_atb#v=onepage&q&f=false
Thanks Monica, I will have a look.
I've dug into the whole issue of behavior analysts a bit more, and
it appears the Behavior Analyst Certification Board has differences
with the behavior analysis establishment, to the extent that it
formed its own professional body (the Association of Professional
Behavior Analysts) rather than associate with the existing body (the
Association for Behavior Analysis International).
http://www.apbahome.net/about.php
"The Association of Professional Behavior Analysts (APBA) is a new
organization with the primary mission of serving the needs of
professional behavior analyst practitioners credentialed by the
Behavior Analyst Certification Board (BACB)."
...
"These needs are explicitly professional in nature and meeting them
requires an organization focused on professional interests. Other
organizations in behavior analysis are appropriate for other
purposes. The Association for Behavior Analysis International
includes basic and applied researchers as well as practitioners, and
its annual convention brings those interests together. However, it
has become clear that the rapid growth of the professional sector of
the field demands the formation of an organization with the primary
mission of serving professional needs."
...
"One of the major initiatives of the APBA will involve developing
close and supportive relationships with regional, state, and
provincial organizations serving professionals in applied behavior
analysis. Of course, ABAI is the field’s oldest organization, and
the APBA is committed to collaborating with ABAI in any ways that
serve the overlapping interests of the two organizations and their
members."
Maybe I'm reading too much into this, or I am engaging in wishful
thinking, but this does not strike me as high praise for ABAI and
its principles.
I suspect your impression of your colleagues is indeed correct, and
that they do not endorse the use of aversives.
I had a quick look at the web site of Federici's associate, and I
can't give an clear yae or nay. But, I have reservations because
there is no explanation of what "RDI" is, and I have further
reservations because RDI itself is a registered trademark. When I
was checking out RDI I came across a document called "RDI as EBP"
http://www.extraordinaryminds.org/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/e.docx
or http://tinyurl.com/3nbvg46, about which I also have reservations.
Maybe this is just me being anal, but the inclusion of the same
references multiple times (eg Aldred C, Green J, and Adams C. (2004)
appears in three different categories) strikes me as potentially
misleading. I at looked at a few of the references, and did not find
specific mention of RDI in any of those I checked.
According to Wikipedia,
"While the Connections Center has conducted two studies into RDI,
there have been as yet no independent studies, although there is
currently one study being conducted at the University of Sydney,
Australia.
"In a recent peer reviewed study, children whose families had
participated in RDI and who had relatively high IQ at start of
treatment showed dramatic changes in diagnosic [sic] category on the
Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule (ADOS) and Autism Diagnostic
Interview-Revised (ADI-R), though the study represented a
non-experimental study without a control group and whose evaluators
were not blinded to time in treatment."
I can't find anything about the "Connections Center", but the first
hit on google takes you to RDI's main page. Furthermore, the first
author of the "recent peer reviewed study" is none other than the
creator of RDI. Maybe my notion of EBP is old-fashioned, but I am
not convinced by the "evidence" that RDI incorporates EBP.
Caveat emptor,
John