How will they try to abuse me next ? (outside of "moderation")

[Cognitee]

Dear All,
I apologize for the following but it is pertinent, given that those in
favor of "moderation" are requesting, in effect, that we " **just trust**
the elected moderation officers. (Character and past behavior are thus
relevant issues. Several of the moderation officers-elect are friends and
"birds-of-a-feather".)
Let me also take this opportunity to urge you to please do yourself a
favor and be anonymous here in spp. At least do so, if you have any
controversial views. Several here (IRONICALLY, prominently including
several of those in favor of "moderation") have clearly repeatedly pryed
into my personal life and have abused me, either themselves or through
soliciting abuse on me from others (typically, both). I have suffered
every form of abuse SIMPLY BECAUSE OF MY VIEWS in this newsgroup. Name
any form of abuse which a righteous man can be subjected to and it is
likely it has occurred to me. regards and best wishes, brad

P.S. I was urged out of anonymity over 2 years ago. It was obvious just
so personal abuses could be inflicted on me AND MY FAMILY !!

Abusers in this group include:
Leslie Packer (Under the guise of "aversive conditioning" she BEGAN A THREE
MONTH CAMPAIGN OF ABUSE AGAINST ME a
year ago which was supported by a liar named Diane and Peter
B. and others; she has recently declined "moderation"
nomination; her grossly exagerated
complaints lost accessibly of an entire population to this
newsgroup -- those in favor of moderation have never been
able to "defend" **themselves** to their satisfaction, they
want "extra" measures; Leslie repeated the lies of
others and
falsely accused me of mail-bombings by repeating the lies of
others, THOUGH HAVING *NO POSSIBLE DECENT EVIDENCE*)

Peter Brentano (former nominee for "moderation"; knowingly made false
statements about me, claiming I have used screen names I
have NOT; his behavior has been simply and clearly abusive
AGAIN AND AGAIN)

Paul Bernhardt (PRESENTLY a proposed moderation officer; author of the
false
and disgraceful "FAQ" about me and he did so repeatedly and
knowingly -- this "FAQ" solicits abuses on my family and it
has been applauded by Leslie and other in favor of
"moderation".)

John Grohol (PRESENTLY a proposed moderation officer; repeatedly falsely
accused me of mail-bombing; misrepresented data; proudly
announced how his other "moderated" newsgroups are "Brad-free")

Dan Rogers (former nominee for "moderation", until withdrawing so he
could
act however he felt compelled -- similar to how Bernhardt
and Peter withdrew, in a past moderator election, if I am not
mistaken; DAN FALSELY REPRESENTED INFORMATION IN THE FIELD)

Larry Lyons (falsely represented data, as has John Grohol. Engages
frequently in gratuitous personal attacks)

Joe Parsons (prying authoritarian from the attention-deficit group)

(And this is just a list that is pertintent NOW with the vote for
"moderation" up-coming.)

[Joe Parsons]

On 24 Jun 1997 16:15:39 GMT, good...@hotmail.com (Cognitee) wrote:

[snip]

[pretty illustrious company snipped]

> Joe Parsons (prying authoritarian from the attention-deficit group)

I suppose I should be flattered?

I am, however, still puzzled about something.

The last time I looked, "authoritarian" had to do with "requiring
absolute obedience," and "prying" had to do with "snooping." I'd be
very interested to know how anything I have ever posted could be
described by the former term.

As to the latter...hm. I *thought* Usenet was open to whoever wanted to
read it, and therefore "prying" or "snooping" (both of which connote
improper investigation) would be completely inapt terms.

Was I wrong?

Joe Parsons

[Joe Parsons]

Tell you what, Brad...

I have been (mostly) stoically enduring your spittle-laced diatribes
against me, your name-calling and what I believe are your intentional
misrepresentations about what you call my "harassment" of you and my
"bullying." You have claimed that I have canceled your posts and back
in March, you said of me

"He tries to tell me what I can and can't do on a free internet and when
I post a reply *to a post about me that appears here* he tries to
embarrass me in my regular newsgroups. I also suspect him of canceling
posts. Who elected this bozo dictator???"

I have put up with your sending me obscene, unwanted, harassing e-mail.
I have resisted the urge to reply in kind to your childish, inane
name-calling, insults and scatological references.

I have even been willing to drop the matter of your ongoing
misrepresentations about me--and without an apology from you, at that.

I think I'm about done with this now; it's time for you to put up or
shut up, Mr. Jesness. Produce a posting or e-mail from me that will
substantiate that I have ever "told you what you can and can't post."
Go ahead. Show me one single post or e-mail (and once again, I give you
permission to post every single e-mail that you have ever received from
me) that reflects the kind of personal abuse, obscenity, insult or
invective that you have been showering on me and others whom you
consider your "opponents" on Usenet. For each such posting that you
*might* be able to produce, I will have *five* to display that I have
received from you.

Go ahead, Mr. "Professional-Counseling-and-Psychology-Instructor." Put
up or shut up.

Joe Parsons

On 25 Jun 1997 03:42:24 GMT, good...@hotmail.com (Cognitee) wrote:

>Dear Joe Parsons,
> I do not question your RIGHT to be here (of course). What I was really
>trying to say is that you have sometimes barged in here just to
>maliciously attack me. And, you have been authoritarian, trying to tell me
>what I can and can't post to "your" group.

[Cognitee]

[Harmon]

I am a non-professional who usually lurks, but would like to comment
before I slip back into my lurking mode. What Brad says is true, IMO.
Some anonymous poster has been posting an anti-"Brad FAQ" which gives
all sorts of personal details about Brad's life without his permission.
It's clear that this anonymous person knows how do do research, and is
probably a professional.

I have been angered and saddened to learn that such abuse is going on in
this newsgroup. Although the poster has made many allegations about
Brad's behavior and his statements to the newsgroup, IMO what the poster
is doing is similar to raping a defenseless woman or child.

What saddens me further is that _not _one professional has even
protested. Indeed, it seems to me, as a layperson, that some of the
professionals here have even been playing games of cat-and-mouse with
him, and provoking him into further angry attacks.

Where is your compassion? How can Brad possibly be a threat to anyone?

Sue Harmon
SOLUTION
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/2421

[Bruce Baugh]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

In article <33B0CF...@spam.not>, donts...@spam.not wrote:
seless woman or child.
>
>What saddens me further is that _not _one professional has even
>protested.

You've missed some articles, then. The proponents made it clear that
it would not acceptable for posting to the new moderated group, and
also that most or all of them strongly disapprove of its tactics.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0
Charset: noconv

iQA/AwUBM7Cp1GNvSnRe6WnGEQJSPgCgh0CEtV3cVGS3wp40drvtdmmANGsAoM7I
mogY1qjUiJgRV3n1w2X5zdwa
=16DO
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
Bruce Baugh <*> http://www.phix.com/~bruce
ari...@eyrie.org <*> Host, new S.F. by Stirling and Effing er
(The above space is deliberate; ask and I'll tell you why, too.)
Manager, Christlib, mailing list of Christian & libertarian concerns

[Harmon]

Bruce Baugh wrote:
> You've missed some articles, then. The proponents made it clear that
> it would not acceptable for posting to the new moderated group, and
> also that most or all of them strongly disapprove of its tactics.

You're right, I haven't been following the threads too carefully. I'm
glad that it won't be posted to a moderated group.

Sue

[Cognitee]

Dear Harmon,
Though I do not usually post personal responses, like "I agree" or "Go
for it", etc, I feel compelled to say: THANK YOU to you. I will comment
no further on the "FAQ" or other behavior you note, other than to say that
your appraisal seems utterly accurate.

In article <33B0CF...@spam.not>, donts...@spam.not wrote:

> I am a non-professional who usually lurks, but would like to comment
> before I slip back into my lurking mode. What Brad says is true, IMO.
> Some anonymous poster has been posting an anti-"Brad FAQ" which gives
> all sorts of personal details about Brad's life without his permission.
> It's clear that this anonymous person knows how do do research, and is
> probably a professional.
>
> I have been angered and saddened to learn that such abuse is going on in
> this newsgroup. Although the poster has made many allegations about
> Brad's behavior and his statements to the newsgroup, IMO what the poster

> is doing is similar to raping a defenseless woman or child.

>
> What saddens me further is that _not _one professional has even

[Harmon]

Dear Brad:

I am a a med student who has also done pharmaceutical research. I often
get angry in reading posts here too, especially when I see doctors and
drug companies accursed of lying and greed. However, I try to post about
my feelings in a way which will be acceptible to this group. If I am
allowed to continue to post if moderation passes (and it will pass,
eventually), I will post in a way which is acceptible to this community.

Sue

[Cognitee]

Dear Harmon,
Thing is: Some terrible and unimaginable things happen with some in this
newsgroup and elsewhere (it seems unimaginable bad things are done even by
professionals -- and even by some professionals that seek to rule).
Occassionally, it is necessary to talk about these things and confront
them. For now, at least we can. regards, brad

--
For a critique of the counseling/psychotherapy field and SOLUTIONS, see my web page: http://www.future.net/~bradj/it.html

[Ed Anderson]

Sue Harmon wrote:
[....]

> Some anonymous poster has been posting an anti-"Brad FAQ" which gives
> all sorts of personal details about Brad's life without his
permission.
> It's clear that this anonymous person knows how do do research, and
is
> probably a professional.

Not necessarily. The person posting the FAQ simply lifted an old copy
from the archives and is reposting it. Maybe he/she added a few things
here and there; I don't know. But the FAQ itself was written about a
year ago (by a non-professional, a student), and after it was withdrawn
by that individual has been repeatedly re-posted (without anyone's
permission) by an anonymous party. The anonymous party needn't be a
professional, since all he/she is doing is re-posting something someone
else wrote.

> [....] IMO what the poster is doing is similar to raping a
defenseless woman or child.

Oh, puhlease....

> What saddens me further is that _not _one professional has even
> protested.

Although it's true there hasn't been much protest lately, there were a
number of professionals who objected to the FAQ when it was first
published, a year ago. That's why it was pulled.

> Indeed, it seems to me, as a layperson, that some of the
> professionals here have even been playing games of cat-and-mouse with
> him, and provoking him into further angry attacks.

I think you're right.

> Where is your compassion? How can Brad possibly be a threat to
anyone?

Poor Brad... <sniff>

Ed

[Harmon]

Ed Anderson wrote:

> Sue Harmon wrote:

> > Indeed, it seems to me, as a layperson, that some of the
> > professionals here have even been playing games of cat-and-mouse with
> > him, and provoking him into further angry attacks.
>
> I think you're right.

So why hasn't any professional here been speaking up? Why haven't the
professionals all gotten together and "spanked" the Brad-baters? Does
anyone care?

(I apoligize if I've missed some posts, like when I assumed that there
were no similar posts against "the anti-FAQ". I don't have the time or
the heart to read all the messages).

> > Where is your compassion? How can Brad possibly be a threat to
> anyone?
>
> Poor Brad... <sniff>

I'll rephrase this: where is your compassion? How do you think your
treatment of Brad looks to someone who might be considering
psychotherapeutic help for his/her problems?

Sue

[Ed Anderson]

Harmon wrote:
>
>[...] If I am

> allowed to continue to post if moderation passes (and it will pass,
> eventually), I will post in a way which is acceptible to this community.

Sue,

If moderation passes, anyone will be allowed to post. Even (in spite of
what he says) Brad. Again in spite of what Brad says, no individuals
will be excluded based on who they are or their viewpoints. Moderation
will rule out off-topic posts, excessive repetition, and personal
attacks; that's all. I'll send you a copy of the charter if you like.

Ed

[Harmon]

I would respectfully like to make a suggestion for anyone following the
posts of Brad and some of the other members of the spp newsgroup
(especially for the "lurkers" and non-professionals):

Dear Brad and the Others: Would you please make your voices heard in
this newsgroup? Please post the following message if you would like to
see the *end* of the "abuse" of Brad, and the *end* of the "abuse" of
Anyone Else Who May Be Involved:

I agree!!!

Note: by stating the above, you are also agreeing that you would like to
see these messages end completely and totally, without any more dialog,
period. Please consider it carefully before you sign and also sign your
real name below your post.

Thanks for listening.
Susan Harmon

[Cognitee]

Dear Susan,
I am in the "respond as personally proded" mode (have been for some
time). In responding to others' supposed concerns, I have presented an
outline of the majority of the misconduct among the proposed moderation
officers (and that of their friends, including past moderation candidates
and some of their most vocal supporters). I have no intention of
initiating a campaign myself (only mentioning bits and pieces as they are
relevant in response to others).
It is my intention that my regular newsgroup participation shall only
be to post two "Ans. to FAQ" per month and I shall respond to follow-ups
(as needed) in those threads. I have no intention of participating here
otherwise, but to the extent that I am addressed personally. I have not
found publishing my well-founded, research-based essays here to be a
worthwhile activity, given the hostility. This is why I have for some
time now planned only very limited participation.

--

[Cognitee]

But, Dear Ed,
Many people will be kicked off the "green list" at some point and have
their posts "examined." It is easy to get kicked off that "green list."
This will result in post delays, *solely at the discretion* of each
moderator examining posts. I submit that the likely post delays will
destroy dialog for several people. Moreover, once kicked off the green
list (again, something which can easily occur), it is very hard to get
back on, requiring a minimum of 2 full months of "good posts" in the eyes
of *most* of the moderators. All this is VERY subjective. Once your
posts start getting examined and delayed, this will go on for a LONG time.
What you claim "moderation" will do are only empty claims. You even
refused to demonstrate moderating (this time around). There are no clear
rules OR procedures that make it likely that anything like what you
describe will occur. The damned road to hell is paved with good
intentions. In reality, you are asking us to "just trust" the
"moderators" and some have clearly and without question shown themselves
untrustworthy.

--

[Cognitee]

P.S. Ed,
You absolutely must put "personal attacks" in quotes to properly
represent the nature of this construct. The standard for this is
**completely subjective**. There is nothing that could even be arguably
cited as possibly a good operational definition for this term in the
"charter." In fact, this term is only defined through vague generalized
examples. I shall have to find and post the proposed "charter" so people
can see this.
The charter is only clear about maintaining the bureaucracy of the
moderation machine. It is vague in EVERY other way. On terms and on
procedures. And it is needlessly vague. There is **NO** attempt to
reasonably define critical terms or to establish procedures to try to
guarantee fairness (like turnaround time for posts). With the "charter
lacking all this, it is UNACCEPTABLE.

[Cognitee]

Dear Cheryl,
No one should accept a bad solution to a problem. It is kind of like
accepting incarceration of an indeterminate length for people AFTER they
have served their prison sentences, just because they MIGHT be further
trouble. Some argue for this because they say society "needs" this to be
"cleaned up" and secure. Well, society may well need SOMETHING to be
cleaned up, but it should be done justly. ***Same goes here. Accept only
a good solution.** Let me give another example.: Segregated schools might
take care of some problems for some people in some places, but you would
not go for them just because you "like" them and "like" what they do for
you, would you ?? It is not simply okay to like what does YOU good or to
just "like what you like" without reflection !!

In article
<6D7AF336EA71C568.9441D494...@library-proxy.airnews.net>,
c...@airmail.net (Cheryl Martin) wrote:

> On Wed, 25 Jun 1997 17:33:11 -0700, Harmon <donts...@spam.not>
> wrote:
>
> [snip]

> >
> >So why hasn't any professional here been speaking up? Why haven't the
> >professionals all gotten together and "spanked" the Brad-baters? Does
> >anyone care?
>

> Sue, many of the professionals have spoken up by supporting the
> creation of a moderated group. All this material you are seeing is
> old, old, old stuff that just keeps recycling. Those who have
> confronted the participants just may not be interested in the
> recycling. So, at least speaking for myself, I'm patiently waiting
> for the CFV to be issued.
>
> [snip]

> >I'll rephrase this: where is your compassion? How do you think your
> >treatment of Brad looks to someone who might be considering
> >psychotherapeutic help for his/her problems?
>

> This group is certainly not designed to be a place to seek solutions
> for those looking for help. The matrix of the group is a blend of
> professionals and nonprofessionals, basically it is a group of
> _people_. Sometimes people express themselves in a manner which is
> repulsive to others. Then, some people react in kind, other people
> ignore the whole mess. Hopefully, we will soon have a moderated
> group available.
>
> Cheryl
>
>
>
> =========================================
> Cheryl Martin, RN, MA
> Dallas, TX
> e-mail: c...@airmail.net

[Cognitee]

Here is at list one edition of the proposal. Please let me know if this
is not the most recent edition.: Note how "personal attack" is not
defined. Note the lack of policies, except to maintain the bureaucracy.
If you overlook the fact that this is really all it is about, it reads
real pretty: (QUOTING):

Date: Fri, 04 May 1997 21:00:00 GMT

REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
moderated group sci.psychology.psychotherapy.moderated

[ news.announce.newgroups moderator's note: This message is being
reposted because it was cancelled by someone who was not
authorized to do so. -- tale ]

Newsgroup line:
sci.psychology.psychotherapy.moderated Practice of psychotherapy. (Moderated)

This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the creation of a new
Usenet newsgroup, sci.psychology.psychotherapy.moderated. This is not a
Call for Votes (CFV); you cannot vote at this time. Procedural details
are below.

RATIONALE: sci.psychology.psychotherapy.moderated

About one year ago, an attempt was made to moderate
sci.psychology.psychotherapy (hereinafter "spp"). That attempt
failed. However, the reasons for desiring a moderated group remain
essentially unchanged: personal attacks and off-topic posts
predominate, driving away many prospective members, both lay and
professional. Therefore, we are now proposing to create a new,
moderated therapy discussion group, and to leave the existing group
unmoderated.

CHARTER: sci.psychology.psychotherapy.moderated

Sci.psychology.psychotherapy.moderated (hereinafter "sppm") exists as a
forum for the discussion of psychotherapy. Anyone with an interest in
such discussion is welcome. This would include practitioners of all
types (psychologists, psychiatrists, marriage/family counselors, social
workers, etc.), students of therapy, and therapy clientele.

Some examples of topics appropriate for discussion in sppm include (but
are not limited to) the following:

- a particular type of psychotherapy (e.g., cognitive-behavioral,
psychodynamic), or a comparison between two types. There will be no
restrictions on the types of therapeutic modalities which are
appropriate for discussion -- save for treatments that seem to have no
obvious connection to psychology (e.g., palm-reading, crystals); these
will not be accepted unless a connection is made, clearly and
plausibly.

- a particular psychological disorder (e.g., depression, eating
disorder)

- a particular psychological theory (e.g., object relations theory,
learning theory), as it relates to the material of therapy

- research relevant to psychotherapy

- psychopharmacological (drug) or other biological treatments

- diagnostic issues

- psychotherapist training and supervision

- ethical issues faced by therapists

- trends in practice (e.g., emerging modalities)

- the relationship between psychotherapy and other fields of inquiry
such as philosophy or religion (as long as the discussion remains
focused on psychotherapy)

- career issues (e.g., establishing a private practice, coping with
managed care)

- business related directly to psychotherapy (e.g., employment
opportunities, equipment for sale)

- case studies (if and only if client anonymity is ensured)

- announcements and reports of meetings, conferences, and newsletters,
including those put out by self-help organizations (please consider
posting or cross-posting these to sci.psychology.announce, however)

- requests for information or advice about a specific problem. Sppm is
not an on-line support group, however, and no therapy will be offered.
Please be cautious about accepting whatever psychological advice you
receive; there is no way to verify either the credentials or the
competence of anyone posting to sppm.

The following are inappropriate for sppm, and posts containing them will
be rejected:

- personal attacks, including allegations of professional misconduct
(the latter should be brought to the attention of the appropriate
authorities)

- discussions which wander far from the topic of psychotherapy
(including spam)

- cross-posting to groups outside of the psychology topic area, unless
the reason for crossposting is evident (e.g., cross-posting to a sci.med
group when drug therapy is being discussed). Responses may be made to
the same groups or a subset thereof without further justification.

- needless repetition, defined as 90% or more quoted material. The
moderators may change this value in the future, if they find it to be
unsatisfactory. In addition, posts with 90% or more unchanged text may
not be posted more frequently than once per month.

Moderation:

Moderation will be designed to uphold the charter. It will be carried
out by a panel of moderators, in concert with a bot. The moderators
will be elected in the beginning by members of spp, and thereafter, on a
yearly basis, by members of sppm.

Articles submitted to sppm will first be screened by the bot, and then,
if necessary, passed on to a randomly selected moderator. In order to
facilitate rapid posting, reduce moderator workload, and minimize
moderator intrusion, individuals who are able to meet charter guidelines
in a reliable fashion will be placed on a "green list." This
green list will be supplied to the bot, which will automatically
(without moderator review) post articles by individuals on the list.

The bot will take one of two actions: 1) post the article to sppm, or
2) pass the article to a moderator. Posts from authors on the green
list will be automatically posted to sppm, without further review.
Posts from authors not on the green list will be passed to a human
moderator. The bot will send an e-mail notification to each author
(with a valid e-mail address) whose post is routed to a moderator.

At the inception of sppm, the moderators will compile the green list.
Afterwards, the moderators will add and delete people from the green
list as follows. Once a person has posted three acceptable articles in
succession to sppm, he or she is eligible for the green list. Any
individual (including the moderators, ombudsman, or the author him- or
herself) may submit someone for addition to the green list. A simple
majority vote by the moderators will place that individual on the green
list.

Occasionally, individuals on the green list may post an article which
violates the charter. Again, any person (including the moderators
themselves) may call to the moderators' attention an objectionable
post. If four of five moderators agree that the post violates the
charter, the individual will be given a warning. If the same
individual again violates the charter within a period of a month (with
four out of five moderators agreeing), then he or she will be removed
from the green list.

It should be noted that, when one is not on the green list, this does
not mean one is prevented from posting to sppm; it merely means that
one's submissions are reviewed by a moderator. It should also be noted
that the implementation of the green list may be delayed a while beyond
the CFV approval date, as the bot is still being designed.

After being removed from the green list, a person is eligible for
reinstatement to the green list after two months of uniformly acceptable
posts. In addition, a minimum of three articles must have been
submitted since the date of removal from the green list before one is
eligible for reinstatement. Again, any person, including the individual
in question, may submit the eligible person to the moderators for this
consideration, and a simple majority vote will restore him/her to the
list.

When the bot routes a post to a randomly selected moderator, that
moderator may approve or reject but not edit the post. When posts are
rejected, the author will receive a brief note of explanation, assuming
he/she has a valid e-mail address. The author then has the choice of
either revising and resubmitting the article, appealing the rejection,
or posting the article to the unmoderated forum, spp.

Appeals may be made to any of the moderators or to the ombudsman.
Appealed articles will be sent to all of the moderators for a collective
review. A unanimous vote will be required to sustain the rejection.
That is, if one or more moderators believe that an appealed article is
acceptable, then it will be posted. This should ensure a loose
moderation style where minority interests are protected.

Like the moderators, the ombudsman will be elected first by members of
spp and yearly thereafter by members of sppm. The ombudsman provides a
means by which sppm readers can give feedback about the performance of
moderators and oust one if necessary. The ombudsman's primary duty will
be to receive complaints (or praise) about the moderators' performance
and to communicate with the moderators about this. All comments about
the moderators should be sent to the current ombudsman, Paul Bernhardt
<Paul.Be...@m.cc.utah.edu>. On a monthly basis, the ombudsman will
post to sppm a summary of feedback received. If a person requests that
his or her feedback be kept confidential, this request will be
honored.

The ombudsman will also be responsible for conducting the yearly
election of moderators and ombudsman. He or she will collect the
nominations, confirm acceptance of nomination, form a vote-counting
committee, post a ballot and voting instructions, and post voting
results. If a moderator position is vacated (by resignation, vacation,
or removal by the membership), the ombudsman may appoint someone to fill
the vacant seat for the time remaining until the next yearly election.

When complaints against a moderator are substantive and long-lasting, it
may become necessary to remove a particular moderator from office. Sppm
members can institute a recall election of any moderator by gathering 10
valid e-mail addresses of authors who have contributed to sppm and who
believe a recall election is justified. This "petition" should be sent
to the ombudsman, who, after confirming the validity of the petition,
will form a vote-counting committee, post a ballot, and then post the
final results. If 75% or more of sppm voters agree that a moderator
ought to be removed, he or she will be; the ombudsman will notify the
owner of the post distribution program to remove that moderator. It is
possible to unseat an ombudsman by a similar procedure, although in that
case the petition should be directed to a moderator, who will assume the
duties just described. If a moderator or ombudsman survives a recall
election, no further recall petitions of that moderator or ombudsman
will be entertained for six months.

END CHARTER.

MODERATOR INFO: sci.psychology.psychotherapy.moderated

Moderator: Nancy Alvarado <alva...@wjh.harvard.edu>

Moderator: John Grohol <gro...@coil.com>

Moderator: Rolf Lindgren <ro...@tag.uio.no>

Moderator: John Price <jmp...@ucdavis.edu>

Moderator: Silke-Maria Weineck <wein...@sas.upenn.edu>

Ombudsman: Paul Bernhardt <Paul.Be...@m.cc.utah.edu>

END MODERATOR INFO.

PROCEDURE:

This is a request for discussion, not a call for votes. In this phase,
potential problems with the proposal should be raised. The discussion
will continue for a minimum of 21 days, starting from the time this RFD
is posted to news.announce.newgroups. After that, a Call For Votes
(CFV)
may be posted by a neutral vote taker, if the discussion warrants it.
Please do not attempt to vote until this happens.

All discussion of this proposal should be posted to news.groups.

This RFD attempts to comply fully with the Usenet newsgroup creation
guidelines outlined in "How to Create a New Usenet Newsgroup" and "How
to Format and Submit a New Group Proposal". Please refer to these
documents (available in news.announce.newgroups) if you have any
questions about the process.

DISTRIBUTION:

This RFD has been posted to the following newsgroups:

news.announce.newgroups, news.groups, sci.psychology.psychotherapy,
sci.psychology.announce, sci.psychology.misc

Proponent: Ed Anderson <eand...@itsnet.com>
Proponent: Paul Bernhardt <Paul.Be...@m.cc.utah.edu>

[Ed Anderson]

Cognitee wrote:
> P.S. Ed,
> You absolutely must put "personal attacks" in quotes to properly
> represent the nature of this construct. The standard for this is

> **completely subjective**. [....]

We did spend some time, early on, trying to define "personal attack"
more precisely. It became a gigantic headache where lots of time and
effort were going towards making things very complicated. Since one of
our guiding principles was "keep it simple, stupid," in the end we just
left it at "personal attack." It's my belief that most people know a
personal attack when they see one anyhoo. You're free to demand
increased rigor and precision in the Usenet moderation process. But
this ain't Burger King.

Ed

[Rebecca McQuitty]

Harmon <donts...@spam.not> wrote:
> Dear Brad and the Others: Would you please make your voices heard in

> this newsgroup? Please post the following message [ ... ]

Please don't. The correct way to take a survey like this is to run an
email poll and post the addresses of everyone who responds when it's
done. A bunch of "Me too" messages will only waste bandwidth and annoy
people in both groups who are looking for on-topic messages.

If you want to run a survey, please post a valid address and let people
mail you.

Thanks,
--
Rebecca Graham McQuitty

[John M Price]

Harmon (donts...@spam.not) wrote:
: I am a non-professional who usually lurks, but would like to comment
: before I slip back into my lurking mode. What Brad says is true, IMO.

: Some anonymous poster has been posting an anti-"Brad FAQ" which gives

: all sorts of personal details about Brad's life without his permission.
: It's clear that this anonymous person knows how do do research, and is
: probably a professional.

Brad is not the only person with a FAQ. There are others, notably Steve
Boursy, aka SpeedBump. Most are considered kooks, as in the KoTM Award,
or spammers. Some have produced FAQs in response to the FAQs.

: I have been angered and saddened to learn that such abuse is going on in

: this newsgroup. Although the poster has made many allegations about

: Brad's behavior and his statements to the newsgroup, IMO what the poster

: is doing is similar to raping a defenseless woman or child.

You are about two years behind the times. And a bit outlandish as well.
You should do your homework before making such statements. Do a dejanews
search on the word Cognitee. And use the old database.

: What saddens me further is that _not _one professional has even
: protested. Indeed, it seems to me, as a layperson, that some of the

: professionals here have even been playing games of cat-and-mouse with
: him, and provoking him into further angry attacks.

:
: Where is your compassion? How can Brad possibly be a threat to anyone?

Well, he threatened to sue me, Calweb, and UCDavis. All this because I
put a *copy* of the FAQ in the archive I kept for the last moderation
discussion, when the FAQ first appeared. I also added an addition he
mentioned, and one that another poster mentioned. He posted comments
about a female poster here in the alt.sex groups. He likes to refer to a
couple of guys' butts occasionally. I am also a thug when the mood hits
him.

BTW that archive will disappear when the new CFV comes out. It is at:

ftp://ftp.calweb.com/users/j/jmprice/sci-psy/all-spp.zip

It is a little over 1,000,000 bytes as a zip file.

--
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.

The universal chaos has within it a diverse anarchy
giving rise to order and pattern.
- unknown

[Rolf Marvin B|e Lindgren]

[Harmon]

| What saddens me further is that _not _one professional has even
| protested. Indeed, it seems to me, as a layperson, that some of the
| professionals here have even been playing games of cat-and-mouse with
| him, and provoking him into further angry attacks.

this post very much to the point displays the need for a BradFAQ.

people come here every once in a while, post something in support of
Brad, and after a couple of weeks realize that Brad effectively and
succesfully wore out his welcome with most of us two years ago.

many of us actually _agree_ with Brad's points: Psychologists _are_
lousy scientists, psychology _would_ benefit if the need for scientific
validation of psychological theories were more recognized,
paraprofessionals _may_ be as good therapists as professionals.

Brad's views are not particularly radical. the problem with Brad is not
his opinions, but that he posts them ten times a day, and that he
harasses people by e-mail.

--
Rolf Lindgren, not a Ph.D | "The opinions expressed above are
Sofienberggt. 13b | not necessarily those of anyone"
N-0551 OSLO | ro...@ask.uio.no

[Ed Anderson]

Harmon wrote:
[...]

> I'll rephrase this: where is your compassion?

It's directed where my conscience dictates. For instance, towards
people who actually suffer for good causes. That's opposed to being
misdirected towards people who put on "Poor Me" and "I'm a Victim" acts
for the sake of dominance, control, power, and attention (ahem).

> How do you think your
> treatment of Brad looks to someone who might be considering
> psychotherapeutic help for his/her problems?

<s> That's a rather overly dramatic picture of my influence, don't you
think? (Not to mention a rather sad portrait of the average therapy
client.)

In any case, I don't have any problem with the way I've treated Brad.

Ed

[Cognitee]

Dear Readers: I guess this can be considered an "FAQ"
*At the bottom* of this post you will find the entire new edition of the
proposed charter for sci.psychology.psychotherapy.moderated. I have left
much of my review of the "charter" at the top of this post largely
unaltered (very much as it was in the month-old post I am quoting):

P.S. Ed,
Most of your charter has to do with the politics, operation, and
maintainence of the moderators and charter. So very little effort is put
into trying to define inappropriate posts or in providing any sort of fair
tests of the rules or any clear accountability for the moderators. You
list EXAMPLES of things and never provide clear examples. One could also
be concerned with what may be viewed as "off-topic."
I urge all to vote against the proposal to set up a "special" CLEARLY
positive-slanted "moderated" group, INVOLVING *CENSORSHIP* (even if mainly
through destroying dialog by delays-of-posts). I say that "therapists"
should be able to deal with people IN THE REAL WORLD, realistically (and
not just in their offices, where they have a power advantage).

Here also is a better editied version of my main objections to the
proposed charter and rules:

Dear Ed,
Your proposal is simply vague. Possibly it "sounds nice", but it is
vague. It is also set up to be slanted pro-"therapy". Using the vague
"rules" I have found it amazing what one might see as a "personal attack"
(based on opinions I have actually seen in newgroup dialog). Using your
charter and its rules, someone considered it a "personal attack" when the
ethics of a subgroup of therapists was questioned !! If we can't do this
who knows what else we cannot do? You also have taken away the only real
provision making you have any real day-to-day accountablity: the posting
of all CENSORED posts elsewhere (so they could be examined).
You will CENSOR or at least greatly delay posts that are supposedly
"personal attacks", with no clear regard for the context or merit of the
remarks. At the same time, any positive remarks about the field (or about
persons), no matter how extravagent or groundless, will be accepted
(without regard for their merit or quality). Put these last two things
together and you have a sanatized debate, positively skewed in the
direction of the status quo.
I see the main reason for your new proposed moderated group to be: to
provide a protected forum for mental health practitioners to maintain the
status quo and put it in a good light (for good "public relations"). Any
group of moderators (such as have already been elected), using the "rules"
of your charter, will enforce THROUGH CENSORSHIP a so-called "civil
debate" that is actually a debate that has been santatized and biased
pro-"therapy".
You never really needed moderation anyway. Nothing ever really
disturbed good threads and all the "nonsense" (which also allows for
freedom and dissidence) could be ignored.

Here are some changes that would needed for this to be seen as a
reasonable moderation proposal:

* The performance (of moderators) UNDER the charter and rules must be
demonstrated. [(**TOO LATE FOR THIS NOW**)]
One thing that bothers me is that moderators (ALREADY elected) are
unwilling to demonstrate their interpretation of the charter and rules by
examining a random sample of posts and indicating which would be
CENSORED. I view CENSORSHIP as needless and have outlined a moderation
policy that would very likely NEVER involve censorship. Yours freely
allows for it. IN ANY CASE: I certainly will not support something just
because some think it will work. Proposals should be demonstrated (just
like engineered cars are test- driven).
NOR will I support a proposal just because the proposal has APPARENT
simplity (this ONLY seems to be the case because much is NOT made
explicit). Arguments that my proposals make things more complex do not
make any real sense to me and I think they are wrong. Also, persons
pushing for moderation over-estimate moderator work (conveniently) and
underestimate real judgment involved in reasonable moderation and
fairness. I have no doubt that there will be actually acceptable
statements made, that will be seen as so-called "personal attacks" and
they will be rejected if we accept the present proposal, unmodified. As
it stands now, moderators will be sanatizing debate, pure and simple.
**NOTE**: Unreasonably positive "pro-therapy" statements will surely not
be censored. A inherent bias is in the proposal as it will likely be
carried out.

*It is simply unreasoanble and unacceptable to have moderators rejecting
posts after (or by) simply viewing the solitary posts and not looking at
the posts in context. I have a couple of NEW posts I made today that I
believe are appropriate in context, but would likely be censored in the
santitized debates you are pushing for. I HAVE A BOTTOM LINE HERE.
LOOKING AT ISOLATED POSTS MAKES THE MODERATION PROPOSAL A LOSER AND
UNACCEPTABLE.

* Have the first moderator given any particular troublesome post
ASSIGNED to that thread in which the post appears and make it explicit he
will be reading threads to make his judgments. If he rejects a post he
should supply a rationale before passing it on to the next moderator.

* Moderators are to turn-around all posts they get within half a day.

* ALSO: Consider alternatives not involving CENSORSHIP (and even for
moderation involving post delays) and make a simple clear standard of what
is not acceptable, then moderators could dialog with offenders and likely
gain their cooperation. NO TAMPERING WITH POSTS OF ANY KIND, INCLUDING
CAUSING ANY DELAYS, should occur until after some infractions have
occurred AND after an attempt at dialog with a "wrong-doer" has been
made. The approach I have proposed has been the clear and simple one (and
it would seem to be all that is needed, assuming anything is needed at
all). My entire cause for rejecting a post is completely tied up with my
definition of a "clearly and purely
*gratuitous* attack." I don't think the word gratuitous appears in the
present moderation proposal. It is a good word and yet it is all that
really needs to be defined. I am sure all have seen my definition of a
purely and clearly gratuitous attack. (In any case, I clearly imply or
allude to the definition in the next paragraph.)
In contrast to my clear single definition, the terms in the present
charter, "ad hominen", "belittlement," and "insult" are more unclear.
AND, some things that appear like this, EVEN WHEN "AGAINST A PERSON", are
appropriate IFF they are addressing a person's particular *behaviors* (and
are not generalities) *and iff the characterization of some instance(s) of
the person's behavior is congruent with and relevant to the debate, and
arguably supported by the CONTENT of the debate.* Any other attacks on a
person would be gratuitous.

* I must add that I also consider it essential to reinsert the provision
of having all censored posts posted to s.p.p. This was the only thing
that really made moderators accountable. This could be done without
inconveniencing most on s.p.p., by putting all the rejected posts in a
single thread.

> In article <8636887...@isc.org>, eand...@itsnet.com (Ed Anderson) wrote:
>
> > REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
> > moderated group sci.psychology.psychotherapy.moderated
> >

> > This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the creation of a new,
> > world-wide, moderated Usenet newsgroup,

> > sci.psychology.psychotherapy.moderated. This is not a Call for Votes
> > (CFV); you cannot vote at this time. Procedural details are below.
> >

> > CHANGES from previous RFD:
> >
> > In response to the feedback, we have made the following changes:
> >
> > 1. The example of an acceptable post involving psychopharmacology has
> > been reworded to read, "pharmacological (drug) or other biological
> > treatments, as they relate to psychotherapy."
> >
> > 2. Three "alt" groups have been added to the distribution.
> >
> > 3. We added a few sentences to protect the moderators from legal action.
> >
> > 4. We decided that moderator and ombudsman elections should be held one
> > year after the inception of sppm, and every two years thereafter. The
> > campaigning and voting periods will be limited to two weeks each.
> >
> > 5. If a moderator leaves office before the term is up, the seat will be
> > filled for the remainder of the term by a person chosen by the remaining
> > moderators and ombudsman.
> >
> > 6. We have clarified that sppm is not designed to be a support
> > group.
> >
> > 7. We have clarified that no part of an article (including the header)
> > will be edited by the moderators, and that all rejected articles --
> > including crossposted ones -- will be returned, untouched, to their
> > authors.

> >
> > Newsgroup line:
> > sci.psychology.psychotherapy.moderated Practice of psychotherapy.
(Moderated)
> >

> > RATIONALE: sci.psychology.psychotherapy.moderated
> >
> > About one year ago, an attempt was made to moderate
> > sci.psychology.psychotherapy (hereinafter "spp"). That attempt
> > failed. However, the reasons for desiring a moderated group remain
> > essentially unchanged: personal attacks and off-topic posts
> > predominate, driving away many prospective members, both lay and
> > professional. Therefore, we are now proposing to create a new,
> > moderated therapy discussion group, and to leave the existing group
> > unmoderated.
> >
> > CHARTER: sci.psychology.psychotherapy.moderated
> >

> > Submissions should be sent to: <sp...@cmhc.com>. Articles posted to the
> > newsgroup will be automatically routed to this address.

> >
> > Sci.psychology.psychotherapy.moderated (hereinafter "sppm") exists as a
> > forum for the discussion of psychotherapy. Anyone with an interest in
> > such discussion is welcome. This would include practitioners of all
> > types (psychologists, psychiatrists, marriage/family counselors, social
> > workers, etc.), students of therapy, and therapy clientele.
> >
> > Some examples of topics appropriate for discussion in sppm include (but
> > are not limited to) the following:
> >
> > - a particular type of psychotherapy (e.g., cognitive-behavioral,
> > psychodynamic), or a comparison between two types. There will be no

> > restrictions on the types of therapeutic modalities that are appropriate

> > for discussion -- save for treatments that seem to have no obvious

> > connection to psychology (e.g., palm-reading, crystals). The latter
> > will not be accepted, unless a clear, plausible connection to psychology
> > is made.

> >
> > - a particular psychological disorder (e.g., depression, eating
> > disorder)
> >
> > - a particular psychological theory (e.g., object relations theory,
> > learning theory), as it relates to the material of therapy
> >
> > - research relevant to psychotherapy
> >

> > - psychopharmacological (drug) or other biological treatments, as they
> > relate to psychotherapy
> >
> > - diagnostic issues
> >
> > - therapist training and supervision

> >
> > - ethical issues faced by therapists
> >

> > - trends in practice (e.g., emerging or alternative modalities)

> >
> > - the relationship between psychotherapy and other fields of inquiry
> > such as philosophy or religion (as long as the discussion remains
> > focused on psychotherapy)
> >
> > - career issues (e.g., establishing a private practice, coping with
> > managed care)
> >
> > - business related directly to psychotherapy (e.g., employment
> > opportunities, equipment for sale)
> >
> > - case studies (if and only if client anonymity is ensured)
> >
> > - announcements and reports of meetings, conferences, and newsletters,
> > including those put out by self-help organizations (please consider
> > posting or cross-posting these to sci.psychology.announce, however)
> >

> > - requests for information about a specific problem. However, those
> > looking for exchanges characteristic of a support group should seek out
> > an actual support group, as sppm was not designed to serve that
> > function.

> >
> > The following are inappropriate for sppm, and posts containing them will
> > be rejected:
> >
> > - personal attacks, including allegations of professional misconduct
> > (the latter should be brought to the attention of the appropriate
> > authorities)
> >
> > - discussions which wander far from the topic of psychotherapy
> > (including spam)
> >
> > - cross-posting to groups outside of the psychology topic area, unless
> > the reason for crossposting is evident (e.g., cross-posting to a sci.med
> > group when drug therapy is being discussed). Responses may be made to
> > the same groups or a subset thereof without further justification.
> >
> > - needless repetition, defined as 90% or more quoted material. The
> > moderators may change this value in the future, if they find it to be
> > unsatisfactory. In addition, posts with 90% or more unchanged text may
> > not be posted more frequently than once per month.
> >
> > Moderation:
> >
> > Moderation will be designed to uphold the charter. It will be carried

> > out by a panel of moderators, in concert with a bot. The current
> > moderators have been elected by readers of spp. One year after the
> > inception of sppm, a second election of moderators will take place.
> > Thereafter, elections of moderators will occur every two years.
> > Campaigning will be limited to the 14 days before the vote. The voting
> > period will last 14 days.

> > moderator will approve or reject the post. In no case will he or she
> > edit any part of the post (including the header) in any way. All
> > rejected posts, including cross-posted ones, will be returned to their
> > authors intact (assuming that author has a valid e-mail address). A
> > brief explanation of the rejection will accompany the article. The
> > author may then revise and resubmit the article, appeal the rejection,
> > or submit the article to another forum (e.g., spp).
> >
> > If you wish to appeal the rejection of a post, please write to:
> > <sppm-mo...@cmhc.com>. One may also contact any individual
> > moderator or the ombudsman (see below for addresses). When an article
> > is appealed, it is sent to all of the moderators. If at least one of
> > the moderators believe that the article is acceptable, then the article
> > shall be posted. Thus, unanimity will be required to sustain a
> > rejection. This should ensure a loose moderation style where minority
> > interests are protected.
> >
> > The rules governing the election of an ombudsman are the same as those
> > governing the election of moderators: the ombudsman was elected by
> > readers of spp; a year from the inception of sppm, a second election for
> > ombudsman will take place, and at two-year intervals thereafter;
> > campaigning will be limited to the two week period before the vote, and
> > the voting period will last two weeks.

> >
> > The ombudsman provides a means by which sppm readers can give feedback
> > about the performance of moderators and oust one if necessary. The
> > ombudsman's primary duty will be to receive complaints (or praise) about
> > the moderators' performance and to communicate with the moderators about

> > this. Comments and complaints about the moderators may be sent to the
> > ombudsman at <sppm-co...@cmhc.com>. On a monthly basis, the
> > ombudsman will post to sppm a summary of feedback received. If you
> > would like your feedback to remain confidential, please let the
> > ombudsman know this; your request will be honored.
> >
> > The ombudsman is responsible for overseeing the election of the
> > moderators and the ombudsman. He or she will form a nomination- and
> > vote-collecting committee, collect the nominations, confirm acceptance
> > of these nominations, post a ballot and voting instructions, and then
> > post final voting results.
> >
> > The ombudsman or a moderator may occasionally wish to leave office
> > before his/her term is up. He/she may also be removed by the procedures
> > described below. If either of these circumstances occur, the vacant
> > seat will be filled by a vote among the remaining moderators and
> > ombudsman.
> >
> > If complaints against a moderator are substantial, it may become
> > necessary to remove that moderator from office. Sppm members can

> > institute a recall election of any moderator by gathering 10 valid
> > e-mail addresses of authors who have contributed to sppm and who believe
> > a recall election is justified. This "petition" should be sent to the
> > ombudsman, who, after confirming the validity of the petition, will form
> > a vote-counting committee, post a ballot, and then post the final
> > results. If 75% or more of sppm voters agree that a moderator ought to
> > be removed, he or she will be; the ombudsman will notify the owner of
> > the post distribution program to remove that moderator. It is possible
> > to unseat an ombudsman by a similar procedure, although in that case the
> > petition should be directed to a moderator, who will assume the duties
> > just described. If a moderator or ombudsman survives a recall election,
> > no further recall petitions of that moderator or ombudsman will be
> > entertained for six months.
> >

> > Please be cautious about accepting any advice you might receive on
> > sppm. The quality of advice varies tremendously, and there is no way to

> > verify either the credentials or the competence of anyone posting to

> > this newsgroup. Those who self-treat based upon information posted in
> > sppm do so at their own risk. Moderators are not responsible for any
> > direct, consequential, or other damages resulting from information or
> > misinformation posted to sppm. Moderators do not check articles for
> > accuracy, nor do they guarantee or warrant the information provided on
> > the newsgroup for any specific purpose or use. No warranties, express
> > or implied, are made.

> >
> > END CHARTER.
> >
> > MODERATOR INFO: sci.psychology.psychotherapy.moderated
> >
> > Moderator: Nancy Alvarado <alva...@wjh.harvard.edu>
> >
> > Moderator: John Grohol <gro...@coil.com>
> >
> > Moderator: Rolf Lindgren <ro...@tag.uio.no>
> >

> > Moderator: John Price <jmp...@calweb.com>

> >
> > Moderator: Silke-Maria Weineck <wein...@sas.upenn.edu>
> >
> > Ombudsman: Paul Bernhardt <Paul.Be...@m.cc.utah.edu>
> >
> > END MODERATOR INFO.
> >
> > PROCEDURE:
> >
> > This is a request for discussion, not a call for votes. In this phase,
> > potential problems with the proposal should be raised. The discussion
> > will continue for a minimum of 21 days, starting from the time this RFD
> > is posted to news.announce.newgroups. After that, a Call For Votes
> > (CFV) may be posted by a neutral vote taker, if the discussion warrants
> > it. Please do not attempt to vote until this happens.
> >
> > All discussion of this proposal should be posted to news.groups.
> >
> > This RFD attempts to comply fully with the Usenet newsgroup creation
> > guidelines outlined in "How to Create a New Usenet Newsgroup" and "How
> > to Format and Submit a New Group Proposal". Please refer to these
> > documents (available in news.announce.newgroups) if you have any
> > questions about the process.
> >
> > DISTRIBUTION:
> >
> > This RFD has been posted to the following newsgroups:
> >
> > news.announce.newgroups, news.groups, sci.psychology.psychotherapy,

> > sci.psychology.announce, sci.psychology.misc, alt.psychology,
> > alt.psychology.help, alt.psychology.personality

> >
> > Proponent: Ed Anderson <eand...@itsnet.com>
> >
> > Proponent: Paul Bernhardt <Paul.Be...@m.cc.utah.edu>

In article <33B18E...@prodigy.net>, Ander...@prodigy.net wrote:

> Harmon wrote:
> >
> >[...] If I am
> > allowed to continue to post if moderation passes (and it will pass,
> > eventually), I will post in a way which is acceptible to this community.
>
> Sue,
>
> If moderation passes, anyone will be allowed to post. Even (in spite of
> what he says) Brad. Again in spite of what Brad says, no individuals
> will be excluded based on who they are or their viewpoints. Moderation
> will rule out off-topic posts, excessive repetition, and personal
> attacks; that's all. I'll send you a copy of the charter if you like.
>
> Ed

--

[Harmon]

I would like to thank the members of the spp newsgroup for clarifying the
group dynamics for me, both on and offline. Obviously, I was not aware of
the whole picture.

With regard to the present situation: I am glad that I posted my objections
to the baiting of some of the members of spp, because it seems to have
stopped...at least for now.

[Harmon]

I totally agree with the point you are making Brad, and can see how
important the idea is to you of "speaking out" to what you feel is a bad
situation. However, I think that the problem lies not in the ideas
themselves, which are perfectly valid, but rather in the METHODS you have
been using to communicate them to the other members of spp. In other words,
it is NOT your ideas that other people have objected to, but rather YOUR
WAY OF COMMUNICATING THEM.

Good luck!

Sue

Cognitee <good...@hotmail.com> wrote in article
<good_brad-250...@dial009.future.net>...

[John M Price]

In sci.psychology.psychotherapy Ed Anderson <eand...@itsnet.com> wrote:
: Harmon wrote:

[snip]
: > How do you think your

: > treatment of Brad looks to someone who might be considering
: > psychotherapeutic help for his/her problems?

: <s> That's a rather overly dramatic picture of my influence, don't you
: think? (Not to mention a rather sad portrait of the average therapy
: client.)

: In any case, I don't have any problem with the way I've treated Brad.

Sadly, Brad has no problem with the way he's treated anybody.

--
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.

Atheist# 683

_/ , .
, -' ) ( \-------.,' (\_________________________
, ,-/ | /\_) ) \/ ,' _.----------------------,\
,', /, | / >--. ,) / /\\
/ , //|,' /' '\--'\\) /,' \\ ` ` ,
/ , // || ,' (.--^( `') // \\ \
( , // ||,___,-' (__\\ '^^^' // \\ ` ,
\ // ||--.__ ( \ `^--) _____.-'/ \\ \,
>'/ ||, ( \|_(\-' ,' \\
/, || \ \ / \\ ,
(/ || \ ) ,'( \\ \
drawn by: Malkav: pam...@leahi.kcc.hawaii.edu
"The devil made me do it!"

[Joseph P. Arco]

Subject: Re: How will they try to abuse me next ? (outside of "moderation")
From: good...@hotmail.com (Cognitee)
Date: 1997/06/26
Message-Id: <good_brad-260...@dial004.future.net>
Newsgroups: sci.psychology.psychotherapy,news.groups

Dear Readers: I guess this can be considered an "FAQ"
*At the bottom* of this post you will find the entire new edition of the
proposed charter for sci.psychology.psychotherapy.moderated. I have left
much of my review of the "charter" at the top of this post largely
unaltered (very much as it was in the month-old post I am quoting):

P.S. Ed,
Most of your charter has to do with the politics, operation, and
maintainence of the moderators and charter. So very little effort is put

into trying to define inappropriate posts...

[balance deleted]

Cognitee wrote:
>
> Dear Joe,
> Please say something of substance and otherwise masturbate privately.
>
> In article <337B52...@top.monad.net>, "Joseph P. Arco"
> <ja...@top.monad.net> wrote:
>
> > Dear Nancy Alvarado, John Grohol, Rolf Lindgren, John Price, Silke-Maria
> Weineck, Paul
> > Bernhardt and Ed Anderson,
> >
> >
> > " JOB WELL DONE "
> >
> >
> >
> > Kindest Regards,
> >
> > ...Joe

[ann sheehan]

Hi Sue: I thank you for the post below. I have come to actually support
non-moderation due to the behavior of the "professionals" in this group.
I have repeatedly said, let brad have his say, ignore what you don;t
want to read and move on.

Instead, I have repeatedly seen Brad (and I do NOT agree with his stance
or approach to many things, but why can;t we all play nice?) roasted and
subjected to personal abuses, the latest being a "where's Brad" thread
asking where he was because he was not heard from. When I inquired about
the reason for baiting him like that, I was told "we" feared he was
hiding out and being quiet in order to stop the moderation vote somehow.

My go, what paranoia! I truly beleive these professionals need therapy
themselves!

Ann

Harmon wrote:
>
> I am a non-professional who usually lurks, but would like to comment
> before I slip back into my lurking mode. What Brad says is true, IMO.
> Some anonymous poster has been posting an anti-"Brad FAQ" which gives
> all sorts of personal details about Brad's life without his permission.
> It's clear that this anonymous person knows how do do research, and is
> probably a professional.
>

> I have been angered and saddened to learn that such abuse is going on in
> this newsgroup. Although the poster has made many allegations about
> Brad's behavior and his statements to the newsgroup, IMO what the poster
> is doing is similar to raping a defenseless woman or child.
>

> What saddens me further is that _not _one professional has even
> protested. Indeed, it seems to me, as a layperson, that some of the
> professionals here have even been playing games of cat-and-mouse with
> him, and provoking him into further angry attacks.
>

> Where is your compassion? How can Brad possibly be a threat to anyone?
>

[John M Price]

Why does it matter anyway? What's the point?

Rebecca McQuitty (m...@wco.com) wrote:

--
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.

When you clock the human race with the Stopwatch of Time, it's a new
record every time.
- Firesign Theatre,

[Cognitee]

Editorial correction: Somewhere down in the post below (specifically, in
the first sentence of my fifth point in the list with astericks) it should
read: "ALSO: Consider alternatives not involving CENSORSHIP (and **NOT
even involving post delays **) and make a simple clear standard of what is

not acceptable, then moderators could dialog with offenders and likely

gain their cooperation. " (Insert this in place of the sentence that is
there.)

In article <good_brad-260...@dial004.future.net>,

[John M Price]

ann sheehan (ashe...@gis.net) wrote:
: Hi Sue: I thank you for the post below. I have come to actually support

: non-moderation due to the behavior of the "professionals" in this group.
: I have repeatedly said, let brad have his say, ignore what you don;t
: want to read and move on.

Read the archives. As a news.groups regular once said, it is amazing and
appalling.

And the present group, spp, is *not* going to be moderated. It will
remain as it is.
[snip]

--
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.

Men become civilized, not in proportion to their willingness
to believe, but in proportion to their readiness to doubt.
- H. L. Mencken

[Ed Anderson]

ann sheehan wrote:
>
> Hi Sue: I thank you for the post below. I have come to actually support
> non-moderation due to the behavior of the "professionals" in this group.

[....]

Ann,

Please keep in mind that it has been a very small number of persons who
are baiting and fighting with Brad. By voting against the establishment
of a moderated group, you are (in my opinion) punishing all
professionals because of the behavior of a few. You are also punishing
anyone else who may wish to have a civil forum in which to discuss
therapy. Finally, you are ensuring the perpetuation of the atmosphere
you detest.

Ed

[ann sheehan]

John M Price wrote:

>
> ann sheehan (ashe...@gis.net) wrote:
> : Hi Sue: I thank you for the post below. I have come to actually support

> Read the archives. As a news.groups regular once said, it is amazing and
> appalling.

I don't have the time or inclination to spend tracking down people's post
for the last several years. And besides, what appears here is more than
enuf!>

> And the present group, spp, is *not* going to be moderated. It will
> remain as it is.
> [snip]

And I shall probably use both.

Pax!
Ann
>

[Paul Bernhardt]

In article <33B1D7...@spam.not>, donts...@spam.not wrote:

> I would respectfully like to make a suggestion for anyone following the
> posts of Brad and some of the other members of the spp newsgroup
> (especially for the "lurkers" and non-professionals):
>

> Dear Brad and the Others: Would you please make your voices heard in

> this newsgroup? Please post the following message if you would like to
> see the *end* of the "abuse" of Brad, and the *end* of the "abuse" of
> Anyone Else Who May Be Involved:
>
> I agree!!!
>
> Note: by stating the above, you are also agreeing that you would like to
> see these messages end completely and totally, without any more dialog,
> period. Please consider it carefully before you sign and also sign your
> real name below your post.
>
> Thanks for listening.
> Susan Harmon

I agree!!! (but it will not change my belief in the need for a new
moderated newsgroup and I doubt that we can get sufficient numbers to
agree for it to stick.)

+=============================================================+
Victories, alas, are only victories. The truly rabid
and zealous crusader looks forward to
the next enraging defeat!--Obwon

Paul C. Bernhardt, M.S. in Social Psychology (non-clinical)
+=============================================================+

[Paul Bernhardt]

In article <lbz3eq5...@tag.uio.no>, Rolf Marvin B|e Lindgren
<ro...@tag.uio.no> wrote:

> [Harmon]

>
> | What saddens me further is that _not _one professional has even
> | protested. Indeed, it seems to me, as a layperson, that some of the
> | professionals here have even been playing games of cat-and-mouse with
> | him, and provoking him into further angry attacks.
>

> this post very much to the point displays the need for a BradFAQ.
>
> people come here every once in a while, post something in support of
> Brad, and after a couple of weeks realize that Brad effectively and
> succesfully wore out his welcome with most of us two years ago.
>
> many of us actually _agree_ with Brad's points: Psychologists _are_
> lousy scientists, psychology _would_ benefit if the need for scientific
> validation of psychological theories were more recognized,
> paraprofessionals _may_ be as good therapists as professionals.
>
> Brad's views are not particularly radical. the problem with Brad is not
> his opinions, but that he posts them ten times a day, and that he
> harasses people by e-mail.

Rolf states my view very closely (I disagree that psychotherapists are
Lousy Scientists, I'd just say they are frequently inadequate scientists).
Me Too posts are generally looked down upon in Usenet. But in this case,
this Me Too post is needed because of the tendency for some to redirect
the discourse and thereby obfuscate.

[Paul Bernhardt]

In article <good_brad-260...@dial004.future.net>,
good...@hotmail.com (Cognitee) wrote:

>
> * The performance (of moderators) UNDER the charter and rules must be
> demonstrated. [(**TOO LATE FOR THIS NOW**)]
> One thing that bothers me is that moderators (ALREADY elected) are
> unwilling to demonstrate their interpretation of the charter and rules by
> examining a random sample of posts and indicating which would be
> CENSORED. I view CENSORSHIP as needless and have outlined a moderation
> policy that would very likely NEVER involve censorship. Yours freely
> allows for it. IN ANY CASE: I certainly will not support something just
> because some think it will work. Proposals should be demonstrated (just
> like engineered cars are test- driven).

If you want to test the moderators, you go for it. I have recommended
several times in the past few weeks that you can organize and operated a
testing of the charter rules to meet this criteria of yours. You have been
unwilling to do the work for something you consider essential to
demonstrating if this thing would work or not. The offer has always been
there and you have refused to pick it up. Considering that this is your
hang up, you should examine it.

[Paul Bernhardt]

In article <01bc81a5$95a47020$a85d29c0@default>, "Ed Anderson"
<eand...@itsnet.com> wrote:

> Sue Harmon wrote:
> [....]

> Not necessarily. The person posting the FAQ simply lifted an old copy
> from the archives and is reposting it. Maybe he/she added a few things
> here and there; I don't know. But the FAQ itself was written about a
> year ago (by a non-professional, a student), and after it was withdrawn
> by that individual has been repeatedly re-posted (without anyone's
> permission) by an anonymous party. The anonymous party needn't be a
> professional, since all he/she is doing is re-posting something someone
> else wrote.
>

The reposter added things I'd never put into the FAQ, such as Brad's home
address and his wife's name. This has never been about Brad's family, IMO.
But some have taken it too far.

> > What saddens me further is that _not _one professional has even
> > protested.
>

> Although it's true there hasn't been much protest lately, there were a
> number of professionals who objected to the FAQ when it was first
> published, a year ago. That's why it was pulled.
>

This is true. Several persons whom I respect gave me reasonable arguments
for why I should not post the FAQ on Brad. I stopped at that point.

[Cognitee]

For some reason, I can't see Rolf's post, so I will reply here.

Dear Rolf and Paul,
No one has ever seen any evidence that I have ever harassed anyone by
e-mail. I never have. Given my position on this and the fact that no
evidence has ever been preesented on this, I think you should not make
this claim. This claim should be accepted as a fact by NO ONE. It would
be hard to make this claim even based on gross exaggeration, since I have
virtually never e-mailed anyone except in back-and-forth, post-for-post
dialog. And this has been VERY rare. Only intentional misrepresentation
of facts or out-and-out lies could account for anyone accusing me of
"e-mail harassment".
I go by the policy that I shall never make a claim for which I have not
amassed and presented the evidence. I have abided by this policy. I
suggest you use the same policy.
This kind of intentional lying or gross misrepresentation by **two**
moderators-elect (if the moderated group passes) should call into question
trusting them on enforcing vague "rules" fairly (or reasonably) OR
operating by policies that, in any reasonable sense, are objectively fair
to all. Rolf and Paul do not show themselves to operate reasonably, just
based on their own judgment.

In article <Paul.Bernhardt-...@news.cc.utah.edu>,
Paul.Be...@m.cc.utah.edu (Paul Bernhardt) wrote:

> In article <lbz3eq5...@tag.uio.no>, Rolf Marvin B|e Lindgren
> <ro...@tag.uio.no> wrote:
>
> > [Harmon]
> >

> > | What saddens me further is that _not _one professional has even

> > | protested. Indeed, it seems to me, as a layperson, that some of the
> > | professionals here have even been playing games of cat-and-mouse with
> > | him, and provoking him into further angry attacks.
> >
> > this post very much to the point displays the need for a BradFAQ.
> >
> > people come here every once in a while, post something in support of
> > Brad, and after a couple of weeks realize that Brad effectively and
> > succesfully wore out his welcome with most of us two years ago.
> >
> > many of us actually _agree_ with Brad's points: Psychologists _are_
> > lousy scientists, psychology _would_ benefit if the need for scientific
> > validation of psychological theories were more recognized,
> > paraprofessionals _may_ be as good therapists as professionals.
> >
> > Brad's views are not particularly radical. the problem with Brad is not
> > his opinions, but that he posts them ten times a day, and that he
> > harasses people by e-mail.
>
> Rolf states my view very closely (I disagree that psychotherapists are
> Lousy Scientists, I'd just say they are frequently inadequate scientists).
> Me Too posts are generally looked down upon in Usenet. But in this case,
> this Me Too post is needed because of the tendency for some to redirect
> the discourse and thereby obfuscate.
>

> +=============================================================+
> Victories, alas, are only victories. The truly rabid
> and zealous crusader looks forward to
> the next enraging defeat!--Obwon
>
> Paul C. Bernhardt, M.S. in Social Psychology (non-clinical)
> +=============================================================+

--

[Cognitee]

Dear Paul,
There is virtually no work involved in selecting a random sample of
posts. The idea that you (and all the other "moderators") have not
demonstrated your moderation, just because I "have not done some work", is
not credible.

In article <Paul.Bernhardt-...@news.cc.utah.edu>,
Paul.Be...@m.cc.utah.edu (Paul Bernhardt) wrote:

> In article <good_brad-260...@dial004.future.net>,
> good...@hotmail.com (Cognitee) wrote:
>
> >

> > * The performance (of moderators) UNDER the charter and rules must be
> > demonstrated. [(**TOO LATE FOR THIS NOW**)]
> > One thing that bothers me is that moderators (ALREADY elected) are
> > unwilling to demonstrate their interpretation of the charter and rules by
> > examining a random sample of posts and indicating which would be
> > CENSORED. I view CENSORSHIP as needless and have outlined a moderation
> > policy that would very likely NEVER involve censorship. Yours freely
> > allows for it. IN ANY CASE: I certainly will not support something just
> > because some think it will work. Proposals should be demonstrated (just
> > like engineered cars are test- driven).
>

> If you want to test the moderators, you go for it. I have recommended
> several times in the past few weeks that you can organize and operated a
> testing of the charter rules to meet this criteria of yours. You have been
> unwilling to do the work for something you consider essential to
> demonstrating if this thing would work or not. The offer has always been
> there and you have refused to pick it up. Considering that this is your
> hang up, you should examine it.
>

> +=============================================================+
> Victories, alas, are only victories. The truly rabid
> and zealous crusader looks forward to
> the next enraging defeat!--Obwon
>
> Paul C. Bernhardt, M.S. in Social Psychology (non-clinical)
> +=============================================================+

--

[Cognitee]

Dear Paul,
I, for one, have vowed not to bring up any assertion against a person
where it is not relevant and appropriate. I also never make assertions
that do not have evidence for them in the public record, and typically I
have collected and presented evidence before making an assertion.
Usually assertions against a person are not relevant or appropriate
(even when true). I have brought some facts up, though, that are relevant
to having moderators we are being asked to "just trust". Evidence of past
abuses, relevant to potential abuse, IS relevant and noteworthy. I STILL
brought all this up only after falsely attacked AGAIN by Peter Brentano.
I am glad I did expose the problems and I guess I should be glad Peter
prodded me.

In article <Paul.Bernhardt-...@news.cc.utah.edu>,
Paul.Be...@m.cc.utah.edu (Paul Bernhardt) wrote:

> In article <33B1D7...@spam.not>, donts...@spam.not wrote:
>
> > I would respectfully like to make a suggestion for anyone following the
> > posts of Brad and some of the other members of the spp newsgroup
> > (especially for the "lurkers" and non-professionals):
> >
> > Dear Brad and the Others: Would you please make your voices heard in
> > this newsgroup? Please post the following message if you would like to
> > see the *end* of the "abuse" of Brad, and the *end* of the "abuse" of
> > Anyone Else Who May Be Involved:
> >
> > I agree!!!
> >
> > Note: by stating the above, you are also agreeing that you would like to
> > see these messages end completely and totally, without any more dialog,
> > period. Please consider it carefully before you sign and also sign your
> > real name below your post.
> >
> > Thanks for listening.
> > Susan Harmon
>
> I agree!!! (but it will not change my belief in the need for a new
> moderated newsgroup and I doubt that we can get sufficient numbers to
> agree for it to stick.)
>

[Joe Parsons]

On Sat, 28 Jun 1997 12:00:04 -0500, good...@hotmail.com (Cognitee)
wrote:

>For some reason, I can't see Rolf's post, so I will reply here.
>
>Dear Rolf and Paul,
> No one has ever seen any evidence that I have ever harassed anyone by
>e-mail. I never have. Given my position on this and the fact that no
>evidence has ever been preesented on this, I think you should not make

Dear Brad:

You have sent me a long string of e-mails that could certainly be
construed as harassing--particularly these little billets doux that you
sent me:

>I do NOT respond to intimidation. I said "lay off". AlI susequent e-mail
>from you is considered harassment.

Then, characteristically, yet another e-mail an hour later that *you*
sent me:

>...I consider you to be abusive and all sequesnt e-mail
>will be considered harassment and shall be forwarded to your post
>master. YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED. I never want to hear from your ever
>again. CLEAR ??? -- brad
>
>P.S. You are an asshole

I find your language, your tone and the sheer volume of posts and e-mail
to be grossly offensive and harassing, Brad.

>this claim. This claim should be accepted as a fact by NO ONE. It would
>be hard to make this claim even based on gross exaggeration, since I have
>virtually never e-mailed anyone except in back-and-forth, post-for-post
>dialog. And this has been VERY rare. Only intentional misrepresentation
>of facts or out-and-out lies could account for anyone accusing me of
>"e-mail harassment".

Syah, right.

Joe Parsons

[Henrietta Thomas]

In news.groups on Sat, 28 Jun 1997 12:15:56 -0700, j...@cyber-mall.com (Joe
Parsons) wrote:

[snip]....

>Dear Brad:
>
>You have sent me a long string of e-mails that could certainly be
>construed as harassing--particularly these little billets doux that you
>sent me:
>
>>I do NOT respond to intimidation. I said "lay off". AlI susequent e-mail
>>from you is considered harassment.

This is not harassment. It is a request for you to stop harassing Brad.

>Then, characteristically, yet another e-mail an hour later that *you*
>sent me:
>
>>...I consider you to be abusive and all sequesnt e-mail
>>will be considered harassment and shall be forwarded to your post
>>master. YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED. I never want to hear from your ever
>>again. CLEAR ??? -- brad

This is not harassment either. It is the same request as the first, only
made more strongly.

>>P.S. You are an asshole

This is a personal attack, not warranted by the situation.

>I find your language, your tone and the sheer volume of posts and e-mail
>to be grossly offensive and harassing, Brad.

Consider yourself lucky. I have received much worse stuff in my own
mailbox. Lucky for me, I know how to use my "delete" key.

Henrietta Thomas
h...@wwa.com
====
I <heart> Junk Detector -- http://members.aol.com/junkdtectr

[Joe Parsons]

On Sun, 29 Jun 1997 16:21:44 GMT, h...@wwa.com (Henrietta Thomas) wrote:

>In news.groups on Sat, 28 Jun 1997 12:15:56 -0700, j...@cyber-mall.com (Joe
>Parsons) wrote:
>
>[snip]....
>
>>Dear Brad:
>>
>>You have sent me a long string of e-mails that could certainly be
>>construed as harassing--particularly these little billets doux that you
>>sent me:
>>
>>>I do NOT respond to intimidation. I said "lay off". AlI susequent e-mail
>>>from you is considered harassment.
>
>This is not harassment. It is a request for you to stop harassing Brad.

Ah--but you're making the assumption that I was harassing Brad. I was
not. I *always* honor requests not to send e-mail; Brad had sent me
such a request, following that request were additional letters from him.

But then, you also seem to be making the assumption that everyone plays
with a full deck.

>>Then, characteristically, yet another e-mail an hour later that *you*
>>sent me:
>>
>>>...I consider you to be abusive and all sequesnt e-mail
>>>will be considered harassment and shall be forwarded to your post
>>>master. YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED. I never want to hear from your ever
>>>again. CLEAR ??? -- brad
>
>This is not harassment either. It is the same request as the first, only
>made more strongly.
>
>>>P.S. You are an asshole
>
>This is a personal attack, not warranted by the situation.
>
>>I find your language, your tone and the sheer volume of posts and e-mail
>>to be grossly offensive and harassing, Brad.
>
>Consider yourself lucky. I have received much worse stuff in my own
>mailbox. Lucky for me, I know how to use my "delete" key.

*shrug* I do, too; I was simply responding to Brad's untrue statement
that he never sends harassing e-mail.

Joe Parsons

[Cognitee]

Dear Paul,
If my memory serves me correctly, your "FAQ" had the personal
information and information about my wife. It was malicious. It also had
essentially all the false charges agsinst me. The "FAQ" posted by
"Anonymous" is almost identical to one of your versions. Perhaps I shall
have to track your version down and post it. I do have a copy, so whether
it has been purged from Deja or not, I can provide a copy of it.

In article <Paul.Bernhardt-...@news.cc.utah.edu>,
Paul.Be...@m.cc.utah.edu (Paul Bernhardt) wrote:

> In article <01bc81a5$95a47020$a85d29c0@default>, "Ed Anderson"
> <eand...@itsnet.com> wrote:
>
> > Sue Harmon wrote:
> > [....]
>
> > Not necessarily. The person posting the FAQ simply lifted an old copy
> > from the archives and is reposting it. Maybe he/she added a few things
> > here and there; I don't know. But the FAQ itself was written about a
> > year ago (by a non-professional, a student), and after it was withdrawn
> > by that individual has been repeatedly re-posted (without anyone's
> > permission) by an anonymous party. The anonymous party needn't be a
> > professional, since all he/she is doing is re-posting something someone
> > else wrote.
> >
>
> The reposter added things I'd never put into the FAQ, such as Brad's home
> address and his wife's name. This has never been about Brad's family, IMO.
> But some have taken it too far.
>

> > > What saddens me further is that _not _one professional has even
> > > protested.
> >

> > Although it's true there hasn't been much protest lately, there were a
> > number of professionals who objected to the FAQ when it was first
> > published, a year ago. That's why it was pulled.
> >
>
> This is true. Several persons whom I respect gave me reasonable arguments
> for why I should not post the FAQ on Brad. I stopped at that point.
>

[Cognitee]

Dear Joe,
The "volume" of my e-mail was one-for-one in reply to yours.

In article <33b66197...@News.nothingbutnet.net>, j...@cyber-mall.com wrote:

> On Sat, 28 Jun 1997 12:00:04 -0500, good...@hotmail.com (Cognitee)
> wrote:
>
> >For some reason, I can't see Rolf's post, so I will reply here.
> >
> >Dear Rolf and Paul,
> > No one has ever seen any evidence that I have ever harassed anyone by
> >e-mail. I never have. Given my position on this and the fact that no
> >evidence has ever been preesented on this, I think you should not make
>

> Dear Brad:
>
> You have sent me a long string of e-mails that could certainly be
> construed as harassing--particularly these little billets doux that you
> sent me:
>
> >I do NOT respond to intimidation. I said "lay off". AlI susequent e-mail
> >from you is considered harassment.
>

> Then, characteristically, yet another e-mail an hour later that *you*
> sent me:
>
> >...I consider you to be abusive and all sequesnt e-mail
> >will be considered harassment and shall be forwarded to your post
> >master. YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED. I never want to hear from your ever
> >again. CLEAR ??? -- brad
> >

> >P.S. You are an asshole
>

> I find your language, your tone and the sheer volume of posts and e-mail
> to be grossly offensive and harassing, Brad.
>

> >this claim. This claim should be accepted as a fact by NO ONE. It would
> >be hard to make this claim even based on gross exaggeration, since I have
> >virtually never e-mailed anyone except in back-and-forth, post-for-post
> >dialog. And this has been VERY rare. Only intentional misrepresentation
> >of facts or out-and-out lies could account for anyone accusing me of
> >"e-mail harassment".
>
> Syah, right.
>
> Joe Parsons

--

[Cognitee]

Dear Henrietta,
Please make it clear that I never sent you e-mail. Make it clear that
the "stuff" you refer to receiving was not from me. Thanks.

In article <33b6845c...@news.wwa.com>, h...@wwa.com (Henrietta Thomas)
wrote:

> In news.groups on Sat, 28 Jun 1997 12:15:56 -0700, j...@cyber-mall.com (Joe
> Parsons) wrote:
>
> [snip]....
>

> >Dear Brad:
> >
> >You have sent me a long string of e-mails that could certainly be
> >construed as harassing--particularly these little billets doux that you
> >sent me:
> >
> >>I do NOT respond to intimidation. I said "lay off". AlI susequent e-mail
> >>from you is considered harassment.
>

> This is not harassment. It is a request for you to stop harassing Brad.
>

> >Then, characteristically, yet another e-mail an hour later that *you*
> >sent me:
> >
> >>...I consider you to be abusive and all sequesnt e-mail
> >>will be considered harassment and shall be forwarded to your post
> >>master. YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED. I never want to hear from your ever
> >>again. CLEAR ??? -- brad
>

> This is not harassment either. It is the same request as the first, only
> made more strongly.
>

> >>P.S. You are an asshole
>

> This is a personal attack, not warranted by the situation.
>

> >I find your language, your tone and the sheer volume of posts and e-mail
> >to be grossly offensive and harassing, Brad.
>

> Consider yourself lucky. I have received much worse stuff in my own
> mailbox. Lucky for me, I know how to use my "delete" key.
>

> Henrietta Thomas
> h...@wwa.com
> ====
> I <heart> Junk Detector -- http://members.aol.com/junkdtectr

--

[Cognitee]

Dear Joe,
You did not produce any evidence of harasssing e-mail. NO ONE ever has
produced any evidence of harassing e-mail from me. Your claims are beyond
gross exaggertion and involve misrepresentation. Of course, this is quite
clear.
I have done you the favor of not supplying your e-mail, telling me
repeatedly HOW to act and what not to bother "your" newsgroup with. You
shall never be allowed to tell nme what to do, Joe. Can you live with
that ??

In article <33b6a32e...@News.nothingbutnet.net>, j...@cyber-mall.com wrote:

> On Sun, 29 Jun 1997 16:21:44 GMT, h...@wwa.com (Henrietta Thomas) wrote:
>
> >In news.groups on Sat, 28 Jun 1997 12:15:56 -0700, j...@cyber-mall.com (Joe
> >Parsons) wrote:
> >
> >[snip]....
> >
> >>Dear Brad:
> >>
> >>You have sent me a long string of e-mails that could certainly be
> >>construed as harassing--particularly these little billets doux that you
> >>sent me:
> >>
> >>>I do NOT respond to intimidation. I said "lay off". AlI susequent e-mail
> >>>from you is considered harassment.
> >
> >This is not harassment. It is a request for you to stop harassing Brad.
>

> Ah--but you're making the assumption that I was harassing Brad. I was
> not. I *always* honor requests not to send e-mail; Brad had sent me
> such a request, following that request were additional letters from him.
>
> But then, you also seem to be making the assumption that everyone plays
> with a full deck.
>

> >>Then, characteristically, yet another e-mail an hour later that *you*
> >>sent me:
> >>
> >>>...I consider you to be abusive and all sequesnt e-mail
> >>>will be considered harassment and shall be forwarded to your post
> >>>master. YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED. I never want to hear from your ever
> >>>again. CLEAR ??? -- brad
> >
> >This is not harassment either. It is the same request as the first, only
> >made more strongly.
> >
> >>>P.S. You are an asshole
> >
> >This is a personal attack, not warranted by the situation.
> >
> >>I find your language, your tone and the sheer volume of posts and e-mail
> >>to be grossly offensive and harassing, Brad.
> >
> >Consider yourself lucky. I have received much worse stuff in my own
> >mailbox. Lucky for me, I know how to use my "delete" key.
>

> *shrug* I do, too; I was simply responding to Brad's untrue statement
> that he never sends harassing e-mail.
>
> Joe Parsons
>
> >

[Cognitee]

Dear Ed,
I responded to this post. Did the response ever become visible to
others (i.e. did it get out on the news servers) ??

I would only say again, here and now, that the only thing that would be
punishing to anyone will be moderation, if the proposal passes.

In article <33B440...@prodigy.net>, Ander...@prodigy.net wrote:

> ann sheehan wrote:
> >
> > Hi Sue: I thank you for the post below. I have come to actually support

[Henrietta Thomas]

In news.groups on Sun, 29 Jun 1997 11:15:18 -0700, j...@cyber-mall.com (Joe
Parsons) wrote:

>On Sun, 29 Jun 1997 16:21:44 GMT, h...@wwa.com (Henrietta Thomas) wrote:
>
>>In news.groups on Sat, 28 Jun 1997 12:15:56 -0700, j...@cyber-mall.com (Joe
>>Parsons) wrote:
>>
>>[snip]....
>>
>>>Dear Brad:
>>>
>>>You have sent me a long string of e-mails that could certainly be
>>>construed as harassing--particularly these little billets doux that you
>>>sent me:
>>>
>>>>I do NOT respond to intimidation. I said "lay off". AlI susequent e-mail
>>>>from you is considered harassment.
>>
>>This is not harassment. It is a request for you to stop harassing Brad.
>
>Ah--but you're making the assumption that I was harassing Brad. I was
>not. I *always* honor requests not to send e-mail; Brad had sent me
>such a request, following that request were additional letters from him.

But you did not say that in your message, so I had the right to make the
assumption.

>But then, you also seem to be making the assumption that everyone plays
>with a full deck.

Yes. Perhaps that is an error on my part.

[snip]....

>>Consider yourself lucky. I have received much worse stuff in my own
>>mailbox. Lucky for me, I know how to use my "delete" key.
>
>*shrug* I do, too; I was simply responding to Brad's untrue statement
>that he never sends harassing e-mail.

OK. Explanation accepted.

Henrietta

[Joe Parsons]

On Sun, 29 Jun 1997 21:39:25 GMT, h...@wwa.com (Henrietta Thomas) wrote:

>In news.groups on Sun, 29 Jun 1997 11:15:18 -0700, j...@cyber-mall.com (Joe
>Parsons) wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 29 Jun 1997 16:21:44 GMT, h...@wwa.com (Henrietta Thomas) wrote:
>>
>>>In news.groups on Sat, 28 Jun 1997 12:15:56 -0700, j...@cyber-mall.com (Joe
>>>Parsons) wrote:
>>>
>>>[snip]....
>>>
>>>>Dear Brad:
>>>>
>>>>You have sent me a long string of e-mails that could certainly be
>>>>construed as harassing--particularly these little billets doux that you
>>>>sent me:
>>>>
>>>>>I do NOT respond to intimidation. I said "lay off". AlI susequent e-mail
>>>>>from you is considered harassment.
>>>
>>>This is not harassment. It is a request for you to stop harassing Brad.
>>
>>Ah--but you're making the assumption that I was harassing Brad. I was
>>not. I *always* honor requests not to send e-mail; Brad had sent me
>>such a request, following that request were additional letters from him.
>
>But you did not say that in your message, so I had the right to make the
>assumption.
>
>>But then, you also seem to be making the assumption that everyone plays
>>with a full deck.
>
>Yes. Perhaps that is an error on my part.

I don't know that I'd consider that a character flaw! :)

>[snip]....
>
>>>Consider yourself lucky. I have received much worse stuff in my own
>>>mailbox. Lucky for me, I know how to use my "delete" key.
>>
>>*shrug* I do, too; I was simply responding to Brad's untrue statement
>>that he never sends harassing e-mail.
>
>OK. Explanation accepted.

Thengyouveddymuch.

Joe Parsons

[Joe Parsons]

On Sun, 29 Jun 1997 14:34:42 -0500, good...@hotmail.com (Cognitee)
wrote:

>Dear Joe,
> The "volume" of my e-mail was one-for-one in reply to yours.

With the exception of your characteristic, abusive "afterthought" that
you sent me an hour after demanding that I send you no e-mail, you are
correct, Brad. What I was referring to was that last letter that you
sent me. It was *not* in response to any letter that I had sent you--it
was simply you excercising your apparent hunger always to have the last
"so there." I don't have any particular problem with that, either.

What I *do* have a problem with is your dishonest claim that 1) I have
sent you "harassing" e-mail; 2) that I have "bullied" you or told you
what you can or cannot post, and finally, 3) your untrue statement that
you have "never sent harassing e-mail."

Joe Parsons

>
>In article <33b66197...@News.nothingbutnet.net>, j...@cyber-mall.com wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 28 Jun 1997 12:00:04 -0500, good...@hotmail.com (Cognitee)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >For some reason, I can't see Rolf's post, so I will reply here.
>> >
>> >Dear Rolf and Paul,
>> > No one has ever seen any evidence that I have ever harassed anyone by
>> >e-mail. I never have. Given my position on this and the fact that no
>> >evidence has ever been preesented on this, I think you should not make
>>

>> Dear Brad:
>>
>> You have sent me a long string of e-mails that could certainly be
>> construed as harassing--particularly these little billets doux that you
>> sent me:
>>
>> >I do NOT respond to intimidation. I said "lay off". AlI susequent e-mail
>> >from you is considered harassment.
>>

>> Then, characteristically, yet another e-mail an hour later that *you*
>> sent me:
>>
>> >...I consider you to be abusive and all sequesnt e-mail
>> >will be considered harassment and shall be forwarded to your post
>> >master. YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED. I never want to hear from your ever
>> >again. CLEAR ??? -- brad
>> >

>> >P.S. You are an asshole
>>

>> I find your language, your tone and the sheer volume of posts and e-mail
>> to be grossly offensive and harassing, Brad.
>>

[Joe Parsons]

On Sun, 29 Jun 1997 14:40:19 -0500, good...@hotmail.com (Cognitee)
wrote:

>Dear Joe,

> You did not produce any evidence of harasssing e-mail. NO ONE ever has
>produced any evidence of harassing e-mail from me. Your claims are beyond
>gross exaggertion and involve misrepresentation. Of course, this is quite
>clear.

It's right here in this post--you've quoted it.

> I have done you the favor of not supplying your e-mail, telling me
>repeatedly HOW to act and what not to bother "your" newsgroup with. You
>shall never be allowed to tell nme what to do, Joe. Can you live with
>that ??

It's no favor at all--in fact, I have told you more than once that you
are more than welcome to post publicly every single e-mail that you have
ever received from me. If there is so much as one improper statement
that I have made to you in e-mail, then produce it, and I will
apologize. If you do not keep mail archives, then let me know--I do
keep archives.

To save you a bit of trouble, though (because I know you're a busy man),
I'm reposting a letter (dated 3/22/97) that I sent to you after you had
posted a long series of posts to alt.support.attn-deficit. The topic to
which you were posting was the FAQ about you posted by "Anonymous." You
were also repeatedly reposting your own FAQ to alt.support.attn-deficit,
which is, of course, an unmoderated newsgroup (like this one).

Joe Parsons

My response to your letters:

Brad, you came into alt.support.attn-deficit a number of months ago, and
your posts there were off-topic and disruptive. No one can prevent a
user from posting to a newsgroup, but when I first wrote to you (and to
the person who wrote the FAQ about you) I had that in mind. It is one
thing to post a short statement to clear the air in a.s.a-d; no problem.
But to continue to beat the dead horse and to repost the "offending"
article in its entirety causes some to question your motives.

Sincerely,
Joe Parsons

>
>In article <33345d8d...@news.supernews.com>, j...@cyber-mall.com wrote:
>
>> Mr. Jesness:
>>
>> It would have been a LOT easier to accept at face value your apology for
>> crossposting your responses to this post to alt.support.attn-deficit if
>> you were not continuing to send your responses here.
>>
>> Please edit your newsgroups line. We have more than enough distractions
>> in that newsgroup.
>>
>> Thank you in advance for your anticipated courtesy.
>>
>> Joe Parsons
>> alt.support.attn-deficit
>>
>> On Fri, 21 Mar 1997 21:12:26 -0600, xx57...@anon.penet.fi (Cognitee)
>> wrote:
>>
[a rambling diatribe about his own FAQ]

>> >
>> >
>> >In article <xx571479-210...@cnc047216.concentric.net>,
>> >xx57...@anon.penet.fi (Cognitee) wrote:
>> >
[another long diatribe about the Brad Jesness FAQ]

>> >>
>> >> In article <5gua27$g...@basement.replay.com>, nob...@REPLAY.COM (Anonymous)
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Brad Jesness FAQ -- Version 1.22
>> >> > ----------------------------------
>> >> > Now being maintained by anonymous
>> >> > December 11, 1996
>> >> >
>> >> > A FAQ about an individual is a controversial thing. Some will be glad to
>> >> > see this posting because of Brad Jesness's intrusion into the various
>> >> > psychology groups. Others will argue this is against common
>netiquette. In
>> >> > order to walk the fine ethical line, this FAQ will only include factual
>> >> > information and clearly identified opinions about this individual.
>> >[snip]

>
>
>
>In article <33b6a32e...@News.nothingbutnet.net>, j...@cyber-mall.com wrote:
>

>> On Sun, 29 Jun 1997 16:21:44 GMT, h...@wwa.com (Henrietta Thomas) wrote:
>>
>> >In news.groups on Sat, 28 Jun 1997 12:15:56 -0700, j...@cyber-mall.com (Joe
>> >Parsons) wrote:
>> >
>> >[snip]....
>> >

>> >>Dear Brad:
>> >>
>> >>You have sent me a long string of e-mails that could certainly be
>> >>construed as harassing--particularly these little billets doux that you
>> >>sent me:
>> >>
>> >>>I do NOT respond to intimidation. I said "lay off". AlI susequent e-mail
>> >>>from you is considered harassment.
>> >

>> >This is not harassment. It is a request for you to stop harassing Brad.
>>
>> Ah--but you're making the assumption that I was harassing Brad. I was
>> not. I *always* honor requests not to send e-mail; Brad had sent me
>> such a request, following that request were additional letters from him.
>>

>> But then, you also seem to be making the assumption that everyone plays
>> with a full deck.
>>

>> >>Then, characteristically, yet another e-mail an hour later that *you*
>> >>sent me:
>> >>
>> >>>...I consider you to be abusive and all sequesnt e-mail
>> >>>will be considered harassment and shall be forwarded to your post
>> >>>master. YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED. I never want to hear from your ever
>> >>>again. CLEAR ??? -- brad
>> >

>> >This is not harassment either. It is the same request as the first, only
>> >made more strongly.
>> >

>> >>>P.S. You are an asshole
>> >

>> >This is a personal attack, not warranted by the situation.
>> >

>> >>I find your language, your tone and the sheer volume of posts and e-mail
>> >>to be grossly offensive and harassing, Brad.
>> >

>> >Consider yourself lucky. I have received much worse stuff in my own
>> >mailbox. Lucky for me, I know how to use my "delete" key.
>>
>> *shrug* I do, too; I was simply responding to Brad's untrue statement
>> that he never sends harassing e-mail.
>>

>> Joe Parsons
>>
>> >
>> >Henrietta Thomas
>> >h...@wwa.com

[Paul Bernhardt]

In article <good_brad-280...@dial003.future.net>,
good...@hotmail.com (Cognitee) wrote:

> No one has ever seen any evidence that I have ever harassed anyone by
> e-mail. I never have. Given my position on this and the fact that no
> evidence has ever been preesented on this, I think you should not make

> this claim. This claim should be accepted as a fact by NO ONE. It would
> be hard to make this claim even based on gross exaggeration, since I have
> virtually never e-mailed anyone except in back-and-forth, post-for-post
> dialog. And this has been VERY rare. Only intentional misrepresentation
> of facts or out-and-out lies could account for anyone accusing me of
> "e-mail harassment".

> I go by the policy that I shall never make a claim for which I have not
> amassed and presented the evidence. I have abided by this policy. I
> suggest you use the same policy.
> This kind of intentional lying or gross misrepresentation by **two**
> moderators-elect (if the moderated group passes) should call into question
> trusting them on enforcing vague "rules" fairly (or reasonably) OR
> operating by policies that, in any reasonable sense, are objectively fair
> to all. Rolf and Paul do not show themselves to operate reasonably, just
> based on their own judgment.

So, you are saying you didn't send this message to me in April of 96?

*** Begin included message ***

Return-Path: Cogn...@aol.com
Received: from emout09.mail.aol.com (emout09.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.24]) by
tec-oz.cc.utah.edu (8.7.5/8.7.1) with SMTP id LAA23004 for
<Paul.Be...@m.cc.utah.edu>; Fri, 26 Apr 1996 11:45:06 -0600 (MDT)
From: Cogn...@aol.com
Received: by emout09.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA16527 for
Paul.Be...@m.cc.utah.edu; Fri, 26 Apr 1996 13:44:35 -0400
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 13:44:35 -0400
Message-ID: <96042613443...@emout09.mail.aol.com>
To: Paul.Be...@m.cc.utah.edu
Subject: Re: Moderated forum

If you are a moderator, you can kiss my buttocks, because I shall request
another moderator for my works (assuming I allow you to know who I am) . You
do disgust me.

*** End included message ***

Or that you didn't send this one to me in February of 96?

*** Begin included message ***

Return-Path: Inco...@aol.com
Received: from dream.future.net (future.net [204.130.134.1]) by
tec.oz.cc.utah.edu (8.7.1/8.7.1) with SMTP id PAA22321 for
<Paul.Be...@m.cc.utah.edu>; Sat, 10 Feb 1996 15:39:01 -0700 (MST)
Received: from dial006.future.net (dial006.future.net [204.130.134.106])
by dream.future.net (8.6.10/8.6.10) with SMTP id QAA14197 for
<Paul.Be...@m.cc.utah.edu>; Sat, 10 Feb 1996 16:23:44 -0600
Message-Id: <1996021022...@dream.future.net>
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 96 22:45:30 0700
From: Incognee <Inco...@aol.com>
Organization: Client Advocates
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.12(Macintosh; I; PPC)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Paul.Be...@m.cc.utah.edu
Subject: Re: Alternative Newsgroups?
References: <4eop4b$8...@stratus.skypoint.net>
<19960201....@cbsys.demon.co.uk> <4f0gou$r...@swifty.cfa.org>
<4f5ljc$4...@stratus.skypoint.net> <4f7lg8$s2o@rata <4f82pc$gue@stratus.k
<4favsi$qsb@ <4fd414$6...@stratus.skypoint.net>
<4fgdvv$g...@news.cc.utah.edu>
X-URL: news:4fgdvv$g...@news.cc.utah.edu
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

Paul, Go screw YOURSELF in the ass

*** End included message ***

[Paul Bernhardt]

In article <5osvp7$1hm$1...@mark.ucdavis.edu>, szjp...@boris.ucdavis.edu
(John M Price) wrote:

> Harmon (donts...@spam.not) wrote:
> :
> : Where is your compassion? How can Brad possibly be a threat to anyone?
>
> Well, he threatened to sue me, Calweb, and UCDavis. All this because I
> put a *copy* of the FAQ in the archive I kept for the last moderation
> discussion, when the FAQ first appeared. I also added an addition he
> mentioned, and one that another poster mentioned. He posted comments
> about a female poster here in the alt.sex groups. He likes to refer to a
> couple of guys' butts occasionally. I am also a thug when the mood hits
> him.
>

Not to mention his threat to contact another regular's employer with
inuendo and similar threats to others. Then there were the stalking-ish
behaviors with regards to another female poster whose personal information
he posted on the group.

AFAIK, nobody has suffered an actual loss due to Brad's actions. But he
has been *acting* threatening at some times in the past. It comes and
goes, usually inversely correlated with the degree of control he preceives
over his posting situations.

[Cognitee]

Dear Paul,
ONLY **YOU**, not I, EVER inappropriately contacted an employer. It is
true that I complained that webmaster Grohol was not allowing me (and
apparently all members of aol) access to Mental Health Net and was
deleting my posts from an open forum there (some posts so reasonable that
they were reposted for me by others). I was complaining about his *actual
current job performance* and the service he was *directly* giving *me*.
This is appropriate. You, in contrast, needlessly contacted my past
employers to "verify cliams of my work history." This was needless and
had nothing to do with service I was providing you in my job. It was not
necessary for any good purpose. Leslie Packer contacted my wife's
employer. Only I have been abused !!!

In article <Paul.Bernhardt-...@news.cc.utah.edu>,
Paul.Be...@m.cc.utah.edu (Paul Bernhardt) wrote:

--

[Cognitee]

P.S. Paul,
ALSO: The only threats have been *against me*. I have never
threatened anyone. Your claims are going beyond exaggeration and even
beyond gross misrepresentation. You are a liar.
For the record (so readers can know the type of people who support and
have supported moderation -- and, for that matter, are currently supported
by the present moderators): Dan Rogers, "therapist" and past moderator
candidate, clearly has written me in a threatening way (evidence was
provided the first time this issue came up). Others saw his post and told
me I should save it as evidence in case he ever did anything. I have
never done anything like this.

P.P.S. Where's your evidence Paul ??? Do you want to see my evidence again?

[Cognitee]

Dear Paul,
Nothing warrants your quoting of persoanl e-mail; that is inappropriate
(for more than one reason).. This e-mail is quoted out-of-context (as
"select" e-mail often would be -- this is one reason why quoting it is so
inappropriate). Fact is: there was hostile e-mail (one-for-one) coming
from you at the time. I did not save it.

P.S. Paul, Truth is people would be better off with me as moderator than
any of the current "moderation group" (except Silke). I have a sense of
decency and propriety, lacking in most of the "moderation group."

P.P.S. Paul, I thought you swore off hostility?? Having trouble with
self-control again ??

In article <Paul.Bernhardt-...@news.cc.utah.edu>,
Paul.Be...@m.cc.utah.edu (Paul Bernhardt) wrote:

[Joe Parsons]

On Mon, 30 Jun 1997 07:07:18 -0500, good...@hotmail.com (Cognitee)
wrote:

>Dear Paul,
> Nothing warrants your quoting of persoanl e-mail; that is inappropriate

I'd say it was more than appropriate, Brad, just as my posting of your
rather unpleasant e-mail to me was appropriate. While there is, in
fact, a generally-accepted *courtesy* to respect the privacy of personal
e-mail, I know of no person who would extend that courtesy to senders of
harassing, insulting and frequently obscene e-mail, such as that which
you are wont to send to others.

In any case, your statement that you do not harass others by e-mail is
false--isn't it?

>(for more than one reason).. This e-mail is quoted out-of-context (as
>"select" e-mail often would be -- this is one reason why quoting it is so
>inappropriate). Fact is: there was hostile e-mail (one-for-one) coming
>from you at the time. I did not save it.

Ah. So the kinds of epithets and terms you use in private e-mail are
actually "appropriate?" I can definitely speak from the standpoint of
someone who has been the target of your e-vitriol, and I can say that
the letters I wrote to you were scrupulously courteous. I tend to
believe that Paul's letters were the same.

>P.S. Paul, Truth is people would be better off with me as moderator than

Aha. Now we see what the problem is; your nose is out of joint because
you lost the moderator vote. I'd have thought you would have mobilized
your elite corps of Client Advocates members to vote you in by a
landslide. With the number of ISPs offering free accounts, I'd think it
would have been a simple matter for you to marshall your own "forces."

Joe Parsons

[Leslie E. Packer, PhD]

>good...@hotmail.com (Cognitee) wrote:

>Dear Paul,

> ONLY **YOU**, not I, EVER inappropriately contacted an employer. It is
>true that I complained that webmaster Grohol was not allowing me (and
>apparently all members of aol) access to Mental Health Net and was
>deleting my posts from an open forum there (some posts so reasonable that
>they were reposted for me by others). I was complaining about his *actual
>current job performance* and the service he was *directly* giving *me*.
>This is appropriate. You, in contrast, needlessly contacted my past
>employers to "verify cliams of my work history." This was needless and
>had nothing to do with service I was providing you in my job. It was not
>necessary for any good purpose. Leslie Packer contacted my wife's
>employer. Only I have been abused !!!

Correction: I contacted the distributor of your threatening and
harassing posts and e-mail to complain to them after you publicly
posted part of my phone number and address and tried to threaten me.

The fact that they happen to be part of the system that employs your
wife was irrelevant to the complaint. For you to suggest that I went
to your wife's employer for any other reason is ridiculous. I would
have complained to whomever was posting your garbage. You brought it
on yourself by using her account.

>
>In article <Paul.Bernhardt-...@news.cc.utah.edu>,
>Paul.Be...@m.cc.utah.edu (Paul Bernhardt) wrote:
>

>> In article <5osvp7$1hm$1...@mark.ucdavis.edu>, szjp...@boris.ucdavis.edu
>> (John M Price) wrote:
>>
>> > Harmon (donts...@spam.not) wrote:
>> > :
>> > : Where is your compassion? How can Brad possibly be a threat to anyone?
>> >
>> > Well, he threatened to sue me, Calweb, and UCDavis. All this because I
>> > put a *copy* of the FAQ in the archive I kept for the last moderation
>> > discussion, when the FAQ first appeared. I also added an addition he
>> > mentioned, and one that another poster mentioned. He posted comments
>> > about a female poster here in the alt.sex groups. He likes to refer to a
>> > couple of guys' butts occasionally. I am also a thug when the mood hits
>> > him.
>> >
>>
>> Not to mention his threat to contact another regular's employer with
>> inuendo and similar threats to others. Then there were the stalking-ish
>> behaviors with regards to another female poster whose personal information
>> he posted on the group.
>>
>> AFAIK, nobody has suffered an actual loss due to Brad's actions. But he
>> has been *acting* threatening at some times in the past. It comes and
>> goes, usually inversely correlated with the degree of control he preceives
>> over his posting situations.
>>

>> +=============================================================+
>> Victories, alas, are only victories. The truly rabid
>> and zealous crusader looks forward to
>> the next enraging defeat!--Obwon
>>
>> Paul C. Bernhardt, M.S. in Social Psychology (non-clinical)
>> +=============================================================+
>

[John Grohol PsyD]

Cognitee wrote:
>
> Dear Paul,
> ONLY **YOU**, not I, EVER inappropriately contacted an employer. It is
> true that I complained that webmaster Grohol was not allowing me (and
> apparently all members of aol) access to Mental Health Net and was
> deleting my posts from an open forum there (some posts so reasonable that
> they were reposted for me by others). I was complaining about his *actual
> current job performance* and the service he was *directly* giving *me*.

> This is appropriate. [...]

Nope, sorry, more lies. MHN has never blocked users from AOL, including
yourself Brad, from accessing MHN. AOL has thousands of IP addresses.
Not to mention how technically nearly-impossible a task this would be,
it would be silly to do so when a large minority of my hits come from
AOL.

If you were blocked from accessing MHN, it's because of your harassment
of me, the president of the company I work for, and its employees by
e-mail, as well as your inability to follow the forum rules (which
thousands of other people have had no problem in doing so). Don't
you remember that day about a year and half ago where you spent the
entire day sending me e-mail at work? We still have that all here and I
will gladly once again share it publically if you're foggy on the facts.

My job performance is not for you to judge, since you do not pay my
salary. If you would like to pay for my salary, or pay an access fee
to access MHN, I will gladly then provide any level of service you
desire. I'd say $2,000 a month would be sufficient to start with.

Make the check payable to "Mental Health Net."

-John

;-)

--
Mental Health Net
http://www.cmhc.com

[Cognitee]

Dear John,
As sole webmaster you certainly did block me and at least some of my
aol friends (whose aol addresses I did not think you knew). You also
blocked my other account on at least one occassion. In all cases I was
given the message that I was blocked (while this did NOT occur to others
or to other services). If this did not happen, why would I have
complained about it to the head of cmhc (the company that owns MHN) ? It
is you that is lying. In fact, you told me several times that you would
punish me for some behaviors (not clearly specified) by doing that and you
did. Perhaps I should ask the head of the facility that Mental Health Net
operates out of, if he recalls my complaint? He isn't a liar too, is he
John? ALSO: People that remember when this issue first arose may well
recall John simply saying that "he had the right to do so because he was
representing a private company." You didn't deny it then. Your present
claims do not match your previous response to these charges.
I ended up simply inquiring with the head of that company about
whether that is the way the company indeed wanted to represent itself.
I never harassed anyone at your company (including you, *ever*). You ,
in contrast had a stranger send me harassing e-mail out of your company.
Maybe I should send this to your boss, if I can find it.
I sure as hell am one to judge your performance, since I am one of the
people you are paid to provide certain services too (this is your VERY
job). Are you stupid as well as corrupt?? Kiss it, John !! Fascist.
(I reserve the right to express myself in words, even if you find me
"uncivil". Words, John, words. Now I don't have the right to pop you in
the nose, but we do have a right to speak.)

--

[Cognitee]

Dear All,
I replied to the blantant lies in this Grohol post (quoted below).
In case that post did not make it out to news servers, let me just
repeat a couple of things: Grohol himself admitted banning me
publically (in past newsgroup posts). This is very good evidence for my
position. ON THE OTHER HAND: No evidence has been offered to any
reliable party that I ever "mail bombed" or "harassed" anyone. Grohol
is a liar. ALSO: It was Grohol who had a co-worker, *using the
machinery of the company he works for*, send me some harassing e-mail.
Finally, I have complained TWICE about gross misconduct of Grohol in
his service to one or more people he serves **on his job** (in the
*direct* performance of his job duties). His boss could verify this.
Yes, John, I am a judge of your services to me as you perform the duties
ON YOUR JOB and as you directly serve ME (and the rest of the public).
Like it or not.
I will recall readers that I have also rightly complained about
Grohol banishing a person without protocol form his other "moderated"
newsgroups and censoring AND deleting totally appropriate posts. John
Grohol is not trustworthy. He is a thug.

P.S. Please let me know if the other post got out to news servers.

[Paul Bernhardt]

In article <33b8cde3...@News.nothingbutnet.net>, j...@cyber-mall.com wrote:

> Aha. Now we see what the problem is; your nose is out of joint because
> you lost the moderator vote. I'd have thought you would have mobilized
> your elite corps of Client Advocates members to vote you in by a
> landslide. With the number of ISPs offering free accounts, I'd think it
> would have been a simple matter for you to marshall your own "forces."

Yeah, I too was surprised that only three ballots included votes for Brad
(this means only three people cast any votes for Brad). With all those
members of Client Advocates out there, your vast array of supporters, I
was frankly concerned that you would gain an office legimately. Some
suggested that I take your initial desire to refuse nomination at face
value, but thankfully you went through with it and demonstrated the depth
and breadth of your support.

[Cognitee]

Dear Leslie,
You grossly mischaracterized me. You lied, or at least engaged in
gross exaggeration. I most certainly NEVER did anything wrong on that
system (NOR did anyone else -- at least one independent observer AND a
supervisor AGREED that I did nothing wrong). You simply harassed an
internet provider company so bad that they dropped the newsgroup for **all
their subscribers**. This has nothing to do with any point about me; you
have NOTHING here. This speaks volumes about you. A real *****. This is
the kind of unfair censorship that you and yours seek for VIEWS you do not
agree with. You are a fascist !!
Yes, folks, abusive people can mischaracterize one and harass a company
so bad that it "caves in." This has little to do with facts (unless you
are talking about "the nature of Leslie Packer").

P.S. I defy you to produce anything that came out of TIES that was
inapproprate. Go for it, baby.

In article <33ff28fa....@news.pipeline.com>, lpa...@pipeline.com wrote:

> >good...@hotmail.com (Cognitee) wrote:
>
> >Dear Paul,
> > ONLY **YOU**, not I, EVER inappropriately contacted an employer. It is
> >true that I complained that webmaster Grohol was not allowing me (and
> >apparently all members of aol) access to Mental Health Net and was
> >deleting my posts from an open forum there (some posts so reasonable that
> >they were reposted for me by others). I was complaining about his *actual
> >current job performance* and the service he was *directly* giving *me*.

> >> +=============================================================+
> >> Victories, alas, are only victories. The truly rabid
> >> and zealous crusader looks forward to
> >> the next enraging defeat!--Obwon
> >>
> >> Paul C. Bernhardt, M.S. in Social Psychology (non-clinical)
> >> +=============================================================+
> >

[Peter]

In article <good_brad-010...@ts003d24.mns-mn.concentric.net>,
Cognitee <good...@hotmail.com> writes

>Dear Leslie,
> You grossly mischaracterized me. You lied, or at least engaged in
>gross exaggeration. I most certainly NEVER did anything wrong on that
>system (NOR did anyone else -- at least one independent observer AND a
>supervisor AGREED that I did nothing wrong). You simply harassed an
>internet provider company so bad that they dropped the newsgroup for **all
>their subscribers**. This has nothing to do with any point about me; you
>have NOTHING here. This speaks volumes about you. A real *****. This is
>the kind of unfair censorship that you and yours seek for VIEWS you do not
>agree with. You are a fascist !!
> Yes, folks, abusive people can mischaracterize one and harass a company
>so bad that it "caves in." This has little to do with facts (unless you
>are talking about "the nature of Leslie Packer").
>
>P.S. I defy you to produce anything that came out of TIES that was
>inapproprate. Go for it, baby.

While your wife was not at her machine someone with the same idiosyncratic
use of English as yours posted these <and I have more>:

-"-
#! rnews 2435
Path: demon.co.uk!news.demon.co.uk!dispatch.news.demon.net!demon!news-
lond.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!news-stkh.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!flagship.gsl.net!n
ews.gsl.net!news-res.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!news.mathworks.com!nntp.primenet.
com!mr.net!news.mr.net!viking.ties.k12.mn.us!NewsWatcher!user
^^^^^^^^^^^^
From: n...@way.jose (L.)
Newsgroups: sci.psychology.psychotherapy
Subject: Re: in a slight defense of Brad...
Date: 19 Aug 1996 16:43:57 GMT
Organization: none
Lines: 35
Message-ID: <no-190896...@198.22.19.211>
References: <4v546t$p...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
<4v5rg5$6...@news1.t1.usa.pipel
ine.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 198.22.19.211

>Dear Ms. Packer:
> I do not see a diagnosis in the post made by brad that you refer to.
>And what if he did do it? It would be no more unethical than when you
^^^^
>stupid buggers do it in the newsgroup (which is quite often). I have no
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>license, let me take a stab at a diagnosis for you: tentatively:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>personality disorder NOS (esp. under consideration: narcissistic p.d. and
>obsessive-compulsive p.d.) In short I would say you are an arrogant,
>conceited a**hole (to use lay terms that mean almost the exact same
>thing). I would also consider that you may be irrational to an extent you
>do not know, and thus delusional. You certainly do not know what your
>are doing. You are dragging the whole field down by pretending to
>represent it, while engaging in raw unbridled aggression that you pretend
>is some scientific conditioning program !! You are doing this with a
>person you do not even know, thus you seem "delusional" (which by the way
>when the word is used alone is just an adjective, not a diagnosis). You
>are the craziest therapist in the world we can only hope. But it has
>become clear that your job is just to train the retarded (or, with you,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>possibly to torture retards into submission). May the mercies of nature
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>and others be with them. If one looked at you cross-eyed or failed to
>call you doctor you would no doubt apply yet more "treatment."

>In article <4v5rg5$6...@news1.t1.usa.pipeline.com>,
>lpa...@nyc.pipeline.com(Leslie E. Packer, PhD) wrote:

>> On Aug 17, 1996 14:49:01 in article <Re: in a slight defense of Brad...>,
>> 'cogn...@aol.com (Cognitee)' wrote:
>>
>>
>> >Lord Leslie, You should try qualifying some of your OPINIONS as just
>> >that. You are grossly arrogant and conceited to the point of being
>> >delusional.
>>
>> Diagnosing without a license, Mr. Jesness?
>>

-"-

#! rnews 1660
Path: news.demon.co.uk!dispatch.news.demon.net!demon!news-lond.gsl.net!news
.gsl.net!news-paris.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!news.cableol.net!news.sprintlink.n
et!news-dc-10.sprintlink.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in3.uu.net!nntp04.pri
menet.com!nntp.primenet.com!winternet.com!mr.net!news.mr.net!viking.ties.k1
^^^^^^^^^^^^
2.mn.us

!NewsWatcher!user
From: n...@way.jose (L.)
Newsgroups: sci.psychology.psychotherapy
Subject: Re: Injustice leads to Aggression
Date: 20 Aug 1996 14:32:55 GMT
Organization: none
Lines: 24
Message-ID: <no-200896...@198.22.19.209>
References: <4v7bd9$q...@newsbf02.news.aol.com> <4v92ao$m...@news1.t1.usa.pip
eline
.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 198.22.19.209

>Dear Ms. Packer,
> What are you doing, looking for a rawer or more poignant status
>symbol? Yes, once your profession has disgraced itself why not bring up
>something like IQ. Maybe Brad is a mensa member for all you know. But
>why bring it up? Although this is a sci newsgroup, to make your post
>substantive and not merely insulting, why not mention your point on
>constitutional law. Do you know how to legally interpret the constitution
>too? What are you a doctor, lawyer, therapist and (what you really have a
>degree in:) an old-fashioned experimental psychologist that works with
>retards?
^^^^^^^^^^
-"-
#! rnews 799
Path: demon.co.uk!news.demon.co.uk!dispatch.news.demon.net!demon!arclight.u
oregon.edu!news.uoregon.edu!hunter.premier.net!news.cais.net!mr.net!news.mr
.net!viking.ties.k12.mn.us!NewsWatcher!user
^^^^^^^^^^^^
From: an58...@anon.penet.fi (L.)
Newsgroups: sci.psychology.psychotherapy
Subject: Re: Who's the nast B---- cluttering up the newsgroup
Date: 30 Jul 1996 03:32:03 GMT
Organization: the earthwoman
Lines: 7
Message-ID: <an589948-290...@198.22.19.209>
References: <xxx-290796...@dial010.future.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 198.22.19.209

>Yah, I wonder if this disgusting person is as ugly in body as mind and
>spirit. What a hag! Hang in there BRAD ! We love ya' L.
>
>
>In article <xxx-290796...@dial010.future.net>, x...@xxx.xxx (anon) wrote:
>
>> Stop it please. You know who you are.
-"-
--
Peter

[Leslie E. Packer, PhD]

>good...@hotmail.com (Cognitee) wrote:

>Dear Leslie,
> You grossly mischaracterized me. You lied, or at least engaged in
>gross exaggeration. I most certainly NEVER did anything wrong on that
>system (NOR did anyone else -- at least one independent observer AND a
>supervisor AGREED that I did nothing wrong).

Let them put that in writing and post it here then, Brad. Put up or
shut up.

>You simply harassed an
>internet provider company so bad that they dropped the newsgroup for **all
>their subscribers**.

After they ordered you to cease and desist, you continued posting from
their system. I guess blocking the newsgroup was the only way they
could stop you from violating their rules about appropriate posting
and use of their system.

>This has nothing to do with any point about me; you
>have NOTHING here.

I don't need anything. Your providers cancel your accounts when you
go over the line of appropriate use.

>This speaks volumes about you. A real *****. This is
>the kind of unfair censorship that you and yours seek for VIEWS you do not
>agree with. You are a fascist !!
> Yes, folks, abusive people can mischaracterize one and harass a company
>so bad that it "caves in." This has little to do with facts (unless you
>are talking about "the nature of Leslie Packer").
>
>P.S. I defy you to produce anything that came out of TIES that was
>inapproprate. Go for it, baby.

I see that the response to the above has already been provided by
another poster.

[Cognitee]

Dear Leslie,
Let YOUR service provider certify you as 100% appropriate first, you
dictatorial a**hole. (You make another totally unreasonable request.)
Should I say you are not "okay" (or anyone else is not "okay") until they
get an "official statement" from someone else ?? BITE ME !!!
Leslie Packer is a harasser; she engages in harassment. I explained
already what happened with the service: They cut off the newsgroup for
all the people they served DUE TO HARASSMENT from Leslie !!! No one EVER
presented any evidence that anyone saw as wrong-doing by me (not even ONE
single instance). You will have to take my word for it (OR prove
otherwise YOURSELF !! -- something Peter has not yet done for you !!)
They were simply disturbed by your harassment, that's it !!
The "evidence" Peter produced would NOT be seen as inaprropriate, or at
least not inappropriate enough to warrant loss of service. If you think
all this reflects negatively on me, I believe you are wrong. If this is
all the "evidence" you can muster, it certain leaves my description of
what actually occured as more than credible. Very credible.
You may be "happy" with your "presentation" and may believe it shows
something, but you are sick, Leslie (and alone). What it does show most
people is the malicious nature of some "moderation" supporters and makes
their motivations seem very questionable.

[Joe Parsons]

For me, the most interesting aspect of this whole thread is that I am
coming to believe that Brad actually *is* telling the truth here:

On Wed, 02 Jul 1997 17:37:03 -0500, good...@hotmail.com (Cognitee)
wrote:

>Dear Peter,
> I see nothing wrong with those posts. Certainly nothing wrong in any
>sense where service should be denied to the person writing them.

I think there's a strong possibility that he actually believes there's
nothing wrong with these--and the other--personal attacks. Sad.

Joe Parsons

>> In article <good_brad-010...@ts003d24.mns-mn.concentric.net>,
>> Cognitee <good...@hotmail.com> writes

[snip]

>> >have NOTHING here. This speaks volumes about you. A real *****. This is
>> >the kind of unfair censorship that you and yours seek for VIEWS you do not
>> >agree with. You are a fascist !!

[snip]

>> >And what if he did do it? It would be no more unethical than when you
>> ^^^^
>> >stupid buggers do it in the newsgroup (which is quite often). I have no
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> >license, let me take a stab at a diagnosis for you: tentatively:
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> >personality disorder NOS (esp. under consideration: narcissistic p.d. and
>> >obsessive-compulsive p.d.) In short I would say you are an arrogant,
>> >conceited a**hole (to use lay terms that mean almost the exact same
>> >thing). I would also consider that you may be irrational to an extent you
>> >do not know, and thus delusional. You certainly do not know what your
>> >are doing. You are dragging the whole field down by pretending to
>> >represent it, while engaging in raw unbridled aggression that you pretend
>> >is some scientific conditioning program !! You are doing this with a
>> >person you do not even know, thus you seem "delusional" (which by the way
>> >when the word is used alone is just an adjective, not a diagnosis). You
>> >are the craziest therapist in the world we can only hope. But it has
>> >become clear that your job is just to train the retarded (or, with you,

>> >possibly to torture retards into submission). May the mercies of nature

>> >and others be with them. If one looked at you cross-eyed or failed to
>> >call you doctor you would no doubt apply yet more "treatment."

[snip]

>> >> >Lord Leslie, You should try qualifying some of your OPINIONS as just
>> >> >that. You are grossly arrogant and conceited to the point of being
>> >> >delusional.

[snip]

[Cognitee]

Dear Peter,
I see nothing wrong with those posts. Certainly nothing wrong in any
sense where service should be denied to the person writing them.

In article <3kBtlJAv...@brentano.demon.co.uk>, Peter
<Pe...@brentano.demon.co.uk> wrote:

--

[Ed Anderson]

Joe Parsons wrote:
[...]
> I think there's a strong possibility that he [Brad] actually believes there's

> nothing wrong with these--and the other--personal attacks. Sad.
>
> Joe Parsons

Nail on the head, Joe. I think, at bottom, he simply does not give a
damn about other people. That's why shaming him doesn't work; that's
why dialog doesn't work. He just couldn't care less about you, me, or
anyone else (except himself).

Ed

[Cognitee]

P.S. Libelous Leslie,
Don't tempt me or I will go back and reproduce your many libelous posts,
where you make assertions for which you had (and there is) absolutely no
evidence. There are charges you made repeatedly to assassinate my
character that are completely false. Do you want me to make your
libelous nature clear in spades ???
If I were you, I would stop while I was ahead. I do not like to waste
the newsgroups time on this off-topic allegation stuff, but surely will if
you continue to do so. I will start matching you one-for-one (though I
will certain make a better case than you ever could !!!). I would like
all to notice that I do not waste the newsgroup's time on this
inappropriate stuff until AFTER others have tried to assassinate my
character. The last big round of this junk (inappropriate, irrelevant,
off-topic stuff) began with Leslie's "good friend" Peter Brentano.
(Leslie's motto seems to be "an enemy of my enemy is a friend; she even
posted a "thank you" to "Anonymous" on at least one occassion, though she
later lamely tried to denie it -- her impropriety is glaring !!. And I am
<<laughing>> now, Leslie, <<laughing>>)

gIn article <33c8b906....@news.pipeline.com>, lpa...@pipeline.com wrote:

> >good...@hotmail.com (Cognitee) wrote:
>
> >Dear Leslie,
> > You grossly mischaracterized me. You lied, or at least engaged in
> >gross exaggeration. I most certainly NEVER did anything wrong on that
> >system (NOR did anyone else -- at least one independent observer AND a
> >supervisor AGREED that I did nothing wrong).
>

> Let them put that in writing and post it here then, Brad. Put up or
> shut up.
>

> >You simply harassed an
> >internet provider company so bad that they dropped the newsgroup for **all
> >their subscribers**.
>

> After they ordered you to cease and desist, you continued posting from
> their system. I guess blocking the newsgroup was the only way they
> could stop you from violating their rules about appropriate posting
> and use of their system.
>

> >This has nothing to do with any point about me; you
> >have NOTHING here.
>

> I don't need anything. Your providers cancel your accounts when you
> go over the line of appropriate use.
>

> >This speaks volumes about you. A real *****. This is
> >the kind of unfair censorship that you and yours seek for VIEWS you do not
> >agree with. You are a fascist !!
> > Yes, folks, abusive people can mischaracterize one and harass a company
> >so bad that it "caves in." This has little to do with facts (unless you
> >are talking about "the nature of Leslie Packer").
> >
> >P.S. I defy you to produce anything that came out of TIES that was
> >inapproprate. Go for it, baby.
>

[Nancy Alvarado, Ph.D.]

On Wed, 2 Jul 1997, Cognitee wrote:

> You may be "happy" with your "presentation" and may believe it shows
> something, but you are sick, Leslie (and alone). What it does show most
> people is the malicious nature of some "moderation" supporters and makes
> their motivations seem very questionable.

Leslie, you are not alone. Everyone who has been the focus of Brad's
negative attention stands with you.

On the other hand, the content of this message alone should make the
motivations of the moderation supports obvious.

Nancy

[Leslie E. Packer, PhD]

>good...@hotmail.com (Cognitee) wrote:

>P.S. Libelous Leslie,
> Don't tempt me or I will go back and reproduce your many libelous posts,
>where you make assertions for which you had (and there is) absolutely no
>evidence. There are charges you made repeatedly to assassinate my
>character that are completely false. Do you want me to make your
>libelous nature clear in spades ???

Brad, who on earth do you think you're convincing? Every time you've
ranted and raved how you never send harassing e-mail, people have
posted examples of the harassing e-mail you've sent them. No one
believes your denials.

In fact, IIRC, you landed up owing John Price $200 because you shot
off your mouth and offered a reward for anyone who came up with proof
of something else that you claimed hadn't happened. John posted the
proof, which was readily available in the archives, and you lost the
bet.

Care to go for another $200?

> If I were you, I would stop while I was ahead. I do not like to waste
>the newsgroups time on this off-topic allegation stuff, but surely will if
>you continue to do so. I will start matching you one-for-one (though I
>will certain make a better case than you ever could !!!).

ROFL! You do realize that if you start posting everything, everyone
will vote for moderation, right? Go for it, Brad. Go for it! You're
doing a terrific job of showing people why some of us want another
usenet group that is moderated.

> I would like
>all to notice that I do not waste the newsgroup's time on this
>inappropriate stuff until AFTER others have tried to assassinate my
>character. The last big round of this junk (inappropriate, irrelevant,
>off-topic stuff) began with Leslie's "good friend" Peter Brentano.

Peter *Brentano*? LOL!

>(Leslie's motto seems to be "an enemy of my enemy is a friend; she even
>posted a "thank you" to "Anonymous" on at least one occassion, though she
>later lamely tried to denie it -- her impropriety is glaring !!. And I am
><<laughing>> now, Leslie, <<laughing>>)
>

I have no idea what you're talking about wrt me ever trying to deny
thanking Anonymous. AFAIK, I never denied or tried to deny thanking
whoever posted that information from the archives that proved you were
misrepresenting yet again.

[snip]

[Leslie E. Packer, PhD]

>"Nancy Alvarado, Ph.D." <alva...@wjh.harvard.edu> wrote:

>
>
>On Wed, 2 Jul 1997, Cognitee wrote:
>

>> You may be "happy" with your "presentation" and may believe it shows
>> something, but you are sick, Leslie (and alone). What it does show most
>> people is the malicious nature of some "moderation" supporters and makes
>> their motivations seem very questionable.
>

>Leslie, you are not alone. Everyone who has been the focus of Brad's
>negative attention stands with you.

Thanks, Nancy. Brad's the only one who could possibly imagine or
claim that I'd be alone when he's harassed and attacked so many
people.

>
>On the other hand, the content of this message alone should make the
>motivations of the moderation supports obvious.
>

Exactly. To find a place where we can discuss issues without his
incessantly reducing the level by injecting ad hominem attacks and
accusations of unethical behavior, libel, etc. etc., ad nauseum.

>Nancy
>

[Leslie E. Packer, PhD]

>good...@hotmail.com (Cognitee) wrote:

>Dear Leslie,

> Let YOUR service provider certify you as 100% appropriate first, you
>dictatorial a**hole. (You make another totally unreasonable request.)

You are the one who has made claims about what your provider has
allegedly said to you, so it is up to you to back them up with
evidence. No one takes your word for anything. You have pretty much
lost all credibility with the vast majority of spp regulars.

>Should I say you are not "okay" (or anyone else is not "okay") until they
>get an "official statement" from someone else ?? BITE ME !!!

Speak to Tyson. He might accommodate your need for aggressive sex.

> Leslie Packer is a harasser; she engages in harassment. I explained
>already what happened with the service: They cut off the newsgroup for
>all the people they served DUE TO HARASSMENT from Leslie !!!

Yes, we know: the Truth According to Brad. You "explained." No
proof. Just "explanation." When a bunch of us have correspondence
from them in our files that contradicts what you've so carefully
'explained.'

>No one EVER
>presented any evidence that anyone saw as wrong-doing by me (not even ONE
>single instance). You will have to take my word for it

No we don't.

>(OR prove
>otherwise YOURSELF !! -- something Peter has not yet done for you !!)

Would you like us to post the correspondence from them about you,
Brad? We'd have to get their permission to publish their e-mail. And
I don't think you'd like it if it was posted, since it will show the
world that you're off in your own fantasy interpretations again.

>They were simply disturbed by your harassment, that's it !!
> The "evidence" Peter produced would NOT be seen as inaprropriate, or at
>least not inappropriate enough to warrant loss of service. If you think
>all this reflects negatively on me, I believe you are wrong.

No one really cares what you believe.

>If this is
>all the "evidence" you can muster, it certain leaves my description of
>what actually occured as more than credible. Very credible.

As credible as so many 'recovered memories,' perhaps?

> You may be "happy" with your "presentation" and may believe it shows
>something, but you are sick, Leslie (and alone). What it does show most
>people is the malicious nature of some "moderation" supporters and makes
>their motivations seem very questionable.
>

You really are self-destructing again, Brad.

[snip]

[Cognitee]

Dear Libelous Leslie,
And no one should take your word for anything either, Leslie. You have
shown yourself to be of bad character, in serious ways -- far beyond
anything I have ever done. You have substantiated NO CLAIMS of
wrong-doing against me. You have possibly shown some evidence of
occassional bad manners (though this all occurred in response to similar
stuff from YOU !!). Your pointless but malicious , off-topic presentation
of old posts out of context is further evidence of the disgraceful
behavior of which you are capable.
I can and will show that you have been libelous, if you pursue this
further. (I saved **ALL** the evidence against you once you became
threatening and libelous. I have a complete record of all your FALSE
ALLEGATIONS. I could post dozens of posts where you make or repeat
unsubstantiated, baseless allegations.) I will post outrageous
allegations that you have made for which you provided no evidence. I will
discuss the unethical nature of your behaviors of this sort and I **WILL**
provide evidence that you made claims that were never supported or EVER
backed by any evidence. (AND NO ONE COULD EVER PROVIDE ANY EVIDENCE SINCE
THE ALLEGATI0NS ARE FALSE !!)

In article <33d1d274....@news.pipeline.com>, lpa...@pipeline.com wrote:

> >good...@hotmail.com (Cognitee) wrote:
>
> >Dear Leslie,

> > Let YOUR service provider certify you as 100% appropriate first, you
> >dictatorial a**hole. (You make another totally unreasonable request.)
>

> You are the one who has made claims about what your provider has
> allegedly said to you, so it is up to you to back them up with
> evidence. No one takes your word for anything. You have pretty much
> lost all credibility with the vast majority of spp regulars.
>

> >Should I say you are not "okay" (or anyone else is not "okay") until they
> >get an "official statement" from someone else ?? BITE ME !!!
>

> Speak to Tyson. He might accommodate your need for aggressive sex.
>

> > Leslie Packer is a harasser; she engages in harassment. I explained
> >already what happened with the service: They cut off the newsgroup for
> >all the people they served DUE TO HARASSMENT from Leslie !!!
>

> Yes, we know: the Truth According to Brad. You "explained." No
> proof. Just "explanation." When a bunch of us have correspondence
> from them in our files that contradicts what you've so carefully
> 'explained.'
>

> >No one EVER
> >presented any evidence that anyone saw as wrong-doing by me (not even ONE
> >single instance). You will have to take my word for it
>

> No we don't.

>
> >(OR prove
> >otherwise YOURSELF !! -- something Peter has not yet done for you !!)
>

> Would you like us to post the correspondence from them about you,
> Brad? We'd have to get their permission to publish their e-mail. And
> I don't think you'd like it if it was posted, since it will show the
> world that you're off in your own fantasy interpretations again.
>

> >They were simply disturbed by your harassment, that's it !!
> > The "evidence" Peter produced would NOT be seen as inaprropriate, or at
> >least not inappropriate enough to warrant loss of service. If you think
> >all this reflects negatively on me, I believe you are wrong.
>

> No one really cares what you believe.
>

> >If this is
> >all the "evidence" you can muster, it certain leaves my description of
> >what actually occured as more than credible. Very credible.
>

> As credible as so many 'recovered memories,' perhaps?
>

> > You may be "happy" with your "presentation" and may believe it shows
> >something, but you are sick, Leslie (and alone). What it does show most
> >people is the malicious nature of some "moderation" supporters and makes
> >their motivations seem very questionable.
> >

> You really are self-destructing again, Brad.
>
> [snip]

--

[Cognitee]

Dear Leslie,
The bet was whether **anyone** had referred to you *in any way* in a
group that had the word "sex" in its newsgroup title. I had bet that no
one had. I lost this bet. The post that was found WAS NOT WRITTEN BY ME,
though. There is no evidence the post is by me. This was not part of
the bet. If proof that the post was written by me was required, no one
would have won the bet against me.
Finally, the post in no way is inappropriate anyway. It does not
solicit harassment against you. IN SHORT: You psychotically misrepresent
the post IN ANY CASE. Why don't you simple quote the post for us, so we
can all see it and judge it.
I hope all will notice that Leslie, major pro-moderation person and
friendly with the proposed moderators, admits she has backed the
inappropiate posting of the so-called "FAQ" by Anonymous. This shows her
defective moral character.

In article <33d2d29c....@news.pipeline.com>, lpa...@pipeline.com wrote:

> >good...@hotmail.com (Cognitee) wrote:
>
> >P.S. Libelous Leslie,
> > Don't tempt me or I will go back and reproduce your many libelous posts,
> >where you make assertions for which you had (and there is) absolutely no
> >evidence. There are charges you made repeatedly to assassinate my
> >character that are completely false. Do you want me to make your
> >libelous nature clear in spades ???
>

> Brad, who on earth do you think you're convincing? Every time you've
> ranted and raved how you never send harassing e-mail, people have
> posted examples of the harassing e-mail you've sent them. No one
> believes your denials.
>
> In fact, IIRC, you landed up owing John Price $200 because you shot
> off your mouth and offered a reward for anyone who came up with proof
> of something else that you claimed hadn't happened. John posted the
> proof, which was readily available in the archives, and you lost the
> bet.
>
> Care to go for another $200?
>

> > If I were you, I would stop while I was ahead. I do not like to waste
> >the newsgroups time on this off-topic allegation stuff, but surely will if
> >you continue to do so. I will start matching you one-for-one (though I
> >will certain make a better case than you ever could !!!).
>

> ROFL! You do realize that if you start posting everything, everyone
> will vote for moderation, right? Go for it, Brad. Go for it! You're
> doing a terrific job of showing people why some of us want another
> usenet group that is moderated.
>

> > I would like
> >all to notice that I do not waste the newsgroup's time on this
> >inappropriate stuff until AFTER others have tried to assassinate my
> >character. The last big round of this junk (inappropriate, irrelevant,
> >off-topic stuff) began with Leslie's "good friend" Peter Brentano.
>

> Peter *Brentano*? LOL!

>
> >(Leslie's motto seems to be "an enemy of my enemy is a friend; she even
> >posted a "thank you" to "Anonymous" on at least one occassion, though she
> >later lamely tried to denie it -- her impropriety is glaring !!. And I am
> ><<laughing>> now, Leslie, <<laughing>>)
> >

> I have no idea what you're talking about wrt me ever trying to deny
> thanking Anonymous. AFAIK, I never denied or tried to deny thanking
> whoever posted that information from the archives that proved you were
> misrepresenting yet again.
>
> [snip]

--

[Cognitee]

Dear ALL,
Notice that Nancy and Leslie are indeed "clones." If you wouldn't like
Leslie, the unethical dictator, as a moderator then you wouldn't like
Nancy as one either. They both have some sort of defensiveness that is
psychotic. They are both overly "proud" of their "credentials" and
believe they can say whatever they want that they have happened to hear in
the course of their education and cite it as gospel and strong knowledge
(in in areas where they have no large amount of study). They are, in
short, parrots for the status quo and, being unthinking in their nature,
they are unethical in their judgments -- baises without care.
They both abuse people and question their credentials needlessly. Both
are pro-status quo and do not know how to think objectively, critically,
or for themselves. They are both "powerful" in there own minds based only
on their supposed "credentials." This is not the sort of person you want
to moderate. Their behavior is more like that of a psychopath. They are
thugs.

In article <33ced245....@news.pipeline.com>, lpa...@pipeline.com wrote:

> >"Nancy Alvarado, Ph.D." <alva...@wjh.harvard.edu> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >On Wed, 2 Jul 1997, Cognitee wrote:
> >

> >> You may be "happy" with your "presentation" and may believe it shows
> >> something, but you are sick, Leslie (and alone). What it does show most
> >> people is the malicious nature of some "moderation" supporters and makes
> >> their motivations seem very questionable.
> >

> >Leslie, you are not alone. Everyone who has been the focus of Brad's
> >negative attention stands with you.
>
> Thanks, Nancy. Brad's the only one who could possibly imagine or
> claim that I'd be alone when he's harassed and attacked so many
> people.
> >
> >On the other hand, the content of this message alone should make the
> >motivations of the moderation supports obvious.
> >
> Exactly. To find a place where we can discuss issues without his
> incessantly reducing the level by injecting ad hominem attacks and
> accusations of unethical behavior, libel, etc. etc., ad nauseum.
>
> >Nancy
> >

--

[Cognitee]

Dear Leslie,
No one has shown any significant wrong-doing. Lord knows, if you had
anything my memberships in professional organizations would be threatened
(you are so very hostile and vindictive -- a real complete f******
*****). MY MEMBERSHIPS ARE NOT THREATENED. I AM IN EXCELLENT STANDING
WITH ALL. I am in absolutely excellent standing. In fact, the APA will
have to deal with my formal positions this year at the convention. My
criticisms are so VERY well-founded. I am a leader; you are a hostile
parrot.
In contrast, I am considering getting you removed from some
professional organizations. Libel is something people do not approve of.
YOU (and NOT I) are libelous. Organizations would find this more
significant than any bad manners I've shown.
The only thing ANYONE has ever seen illustrated about me is some "bad
manners". And, my infractions are hardly serious. I may not be
politically correct, but I'm no Howard Stern either.
Only one of the two of us has distorted anything or lied. This again
IS YOU.

<fart> <fart> <belch> (laughing so hard I could throw up on you>

In article <33d5ae86...@news.pipeline.com>, lpa...@pipeline.com wrote:

> >good...@hotmail.com (Cognitee) wrote:
>
> >Dear Libelous Leslie,
> > And no one should take your word for anything either, Leslie. You have
> >shown yourself to be of bad character, in serious ways -- far beyond
> >anything I have ever done. You have substantiated NO CLAIMS of
> >wrong-doing against me.
>

> Brad, the whole world has substantiated claims of wrong-doing against
> you. Repeatedly.

>
> >You have possibly shown some evidence of
> >occassional bad manners (though this all occurred in response to similar
> >stuff from YOU !!). Your pointless but malicious , off-topic presentation
> >of old posts out of context is further evidence of the disgraceful
> >behavior of which you are capable.
>

> They are certainly within the context of responding to your repeated
> lies and distortions.

>
> > I can and will show that you have been libelous,
>

> Go ahead. You will do what -- post statements of mine that refer to
> statements made by someone who is no longer here and claim that there
> was never any proof because there couldn't be any?
>
> This from the same man who has repeatedly claimed that there isn't
> proof of other things that have then been posted publicly?

>
> >if you pursue this
> >further. (I saved **ALL** the evidence against you once you became
> >threatening and libelous.
>

> <yawn>

>
> > I have a complete record of all your FALSE
> >ALLEGATIONS. I could post dozens of posts where you make or repeat
> >unsubstantiated, baseless allegations.) I will post outrageous
> >allegations that you have made for which you provided no evidence.
>

> And how is that different from you making claims about what you have
> allegedly been told by others? Let me remind you that a number of
> people have stated that they received harassing e-mail from you. You
> have claimed that they all lied. A number of them, including myself,
> have publicly posted the e-mails you have sent. If one person doesn't
> publicly post what she received that doesn't make her a liar. And
> your denials about one claim are unlikely to be believed when you have
> made similar and false denials in many other cases.

>
> > I will
> >discuss the unethical nature of your behaviors of this sort and I **WILL**
> >provide evidence that you made claims that were never supported or EVER
> >backed by any evidence. (AND NO ONE COULD EVER PROVIDE ANY EVIDENCE SINCE
> >THE ALLEGATI0NS ARE FALSE !!)
>

> <yawn>

[Cognitee]

Dear Leslie,
There is NO WAY the post could be linked to me. YOU DIRTY, STINKING,
LIBELOUS, DISGRACEFUL, UNETHICAL **STUPID**, ANAL, FILTHY LIAR. Not to
mention that you are: USELESS, REPETITIVE, MALICIOUS, AND OFF-TOPIC,
WASTING EVERYONE'S TIME AND A LOT OF BAND-WIDTH WITH UNSUBSTATIATED
IRRELEVANT CRAP -- over and over and over and over and over and over and
over again. You are the stupidest person I have ever seen and the most
contemptible and disgraceful. Further you are the closest thing I have
ever seem to a female psychopath. I believe you are a criminal.
On your other point (if we can call it that, since you refuse to even
quote the post, it is so benign): The post of which you refer only
mentions your name and provides your e-mail address. It in no way
solicits e-mail, any more than any post wherea person's e-mail address is
given. It *didn't* say: Mail Leslie. It just said Leslie <with such and
such address> is ruining a newsgroup for many. That's it; that's the
WHOLE story and the whole picture (as I recall it).

P.S. If I was a future prospective employer of yours and knew of your
newsgroup behavior, I would never give you a job. If I were your present
employer, I won't trust you for anything.

In article <33d6aed9...@news.pipeline.com>, lpa...@pipeline.com wrote:

> >good...@hotmail.com (Cognitee) wrote:
>
> >Dear Leslie,

> > The bet was whether **anyone** had referred to you *in any way* in a
> >group that had the word "sex" in its newsgroup title. I had bet that no
> >one had. I lost this bet. The post that was found WAS NOT WRITTEN BY ME,
> >though.
>

> So you say. I don't believe you. I think you wrote that post, Brad.
> And Peter analyzed the post publicly to show you all the signs and
> indications that it was your hand behind it.

>
> > There is no evidence the post is by me. This was not part of
> >the bet. If proof that the post was written by me was required, no one
> >would have won the bet against me.
>

> Sure, because the poster (you, I believe) used an anonymous remailer.
> Just the very tactic you complained about in others.

>
> > Finally, the post in no way is inappropriate anyway. It does not
> >solicit harassment against you.
>

> Rubbish! It most certainly does, as everyone recognized.

>
> >IN SHORT: You psychotically misrepresent
> >the post IN ANY CASE. Why don't you simple quote the post for us, so we
> >can all see it and judge it.
>

> Why would I voluntarily post something that like? You know where to
> find it in the archives.

>
> > I hope all will notice that Leslie, major pro-moderation person and
> >friendly with the proposed moderators, admits she has backed the
> >inappropiate posting of the so-called "FAQ" by Anonymous. This shows her
> >defective moral character.
>

> I have not 'backed' the FAQ posting. Look at the past posts, which I
> am leaving below. You referred to a posting by Anonymous. I thought
> you were referring to a post with the following header:
>
> Path:
>
mindspring!uunet!in3.uu.net!207.172.3.52!feed1.news.erols.com!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!howland.erols.net!surfnet.nl!newsgate.unisource.nl!xs4all!basement.replay.com!not-for-mail
> From: nob...@REPLAY.COM (Anonymous)
> Newsgroups: alt.psychology.help,alt.psychology
> Subject: Look what's in the archives -- More proof that Brad is a
> liar
> Date: 29 May 1997 03:34:00 +0200
> Organization: Replay and Company UnLimited
> Lines: 279
> Message-ID: <5mime8$a...@basement.replay.com>
> NNTP-Posting-Host: basement.replay.com
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
> X-XS4ALL-Date: Thu, 29 May 1997 03:34:02 MET DST
> X-001: Replay may or may not approve of the content of this posting
> X-002: Report misuse of this automated service to <ab...@replay.com>
> X-URL: http://www.replay.com/remailer/
> Xref: mindspring alt.psychology.help:14555 alt.psychology:13716
>
> THAT's the Anonymous post I was talking about when I said I thanked
> the anonymous poster. Not the FAQ.
>
> As to the FAQ, I believe that I have stated that it should not be
> accepted in sppm. I have also said that I am not totally intolerant
> of anybody who is so fed up with your b.s. that they would do that.
> >
> > In article <33d2d29c....@news.pipeline.com>,

lpa...@pipeline.com wrote:
> >
> >> >good...@hotmail.com (Cognitee) wrote:
> >>
> >> >P.S. Libelous Leslie,
> >> > Don't tempt me or I will go back and reproduce your many libelous posts,
> >> >where you make assertions for which you had (and there is) absolutely no
> >> >evidence. There are charges you made repeatedly to assassinate my
> >> >character that are completely false. Do you want me to make your
> >> >libelous nature clear in spades ???
> >>

> >> Brad, who on earth do you think you're convincing? Every time you've
> >> ranted and raved how you never send harassing e-mail, people have
> >> posted examples of the harassing e-mail you've sent them. No one
> >> believes your denials.
> >>
> >> In fact, IIRC, you landed up owing John Price $200 because you shot
> >> off your mouth and offered a reward for anyone who came up with proof
> >> of something else that you claimed hadn't happened. John posted the
> >> proof, which was readily available in the archives, and you lost the
> >> bet.
> >>
> >> Care to go for another $200?
> >>

> >> > If I were you, I would stop while I was ahead. I do not like to waste
> >> >the newsgroups time on this off-topic allegation stuff, but surely will if
> >> >you continue to do so. I will start matching you one-for-one (though I
> >> >will certain make a better case than you ever could !!!).
> >>

> >> ROFL! You do realize that if you start posting everything, everyone
> >> will vote for moderation, right? Go for it, Brad. Go for it! You're
> >> doing a terrific job of showing people why some of us want another
> >> usenet group that is moderated.
> >>

> >> > I would like
> >> >all to notice that I do not waste the newsgroup's time on this
> >> >inappropriate stuff until AFTER others have tried to assassinate my
> >> >character. The last big round of this junk (inappropriate, irrelevant,
> >> >off-topic stuff) began with Leslie's "good friend" Peter Brentano.
> >>

> >> Peter *Brentano*? LOL!

> >>
> >> >(Leslie's motto seems to be "an enemy of my enemy is a friend; she even
> >> >posted a "thank you" to "Anonymous" on at least one occassion, though she
> >> >later lamely tried to denie it -- her impropriety is glaring !!. And I am
> >> ><<laughing>> now, Leslie, <<laughing>>)
> >> >

> >> I have no idea what you're talking about wrt me ever trying to deny
> >> thanking Anonymous. AFAIK, I never denied or tried to deny thanking
> >> whoever posted that information from the archives that proved you were
> >> misrepresenting yet again.
> >>
> >> [snip]
> >

[Paul Bernhardt]

In article <good_brad-050...@dial002.future.net>,
good...@hotmail.com (Cognitee) wrote:

> Finally, the post in no way is inappropriate anyway. It does not

> solicit harassment against you. IN SHORT: You psychotically misrepresent

> the post IN ANY CASE. Why don't you simple quote the post for us, so we
> can all see it and judge it.

If the post was not inappropriate, you shouldn't have paid. But you did.
You are either a dummy (for paying) or the post was inappropriate. By
paying the bet you are defacto agreeing the post was inappropriate.

Also, why would you defend the character of the post unless you were
somehow related to it? Why defend someone else's inappropriate behavior?
Don't get on the high horse talking about how you feel that all need to be
treated right. The evidence for your treating people poorly is so
overwhelming so that tack won't get you there.

> I hope all will notice that Leslie, major pro-moderation person and
> friendly with the proposed moderators, admits she has backed the
> inappropiate posting of the so-called "FAQ" by Anonymous. This shows her
> defective moral character.
>

Defective? Hmmm.... I didn't know any of us came with a guarantee. <g> I
suppose Leslie should ask for a refund.

[Peter]

In article <good_brad-050...@dial002.future.net>, Cognitee
<good...@hotmail.com> writes

>If proof that the post was written by me was required, no one
>would have won the bet against me.

Can you enlighten me? What was the bet about? Who won?
--
Peter

[Leslie E. Packer, PhD]

[auk added]

>good...@hotmail.com (Cognitee) wrote:

>Dear Leslie,

> No one has shown any significant wrong-doing.

Ah.. now we qualify it by talking about _significant_ wrong-doing
(emphasis added). Interesting.

> Lord knows, if you had
>anything my memberships in professional organizations would be threatened
>(you are so very hostile and vindictive -- a real complete f******
>*****). MY MEMBERSHIPS ARE NOT THREATENED. I AM IN EXCELLENT STANDING
>WITH ALL. I am in absolutely excellent standing. In fact, the APA will
>have to deal with my formal positions this year at the convention. My
>criticisms are so VERY well-founded. I am a leader; you are a hostile
>parrot.

If you present your arguments there with the same hyperbole and
attacks you've presented it or discussed it here, you will not be
taken seriously. It is not your concerns or ideas that have gotten
you into trouble in your interactions, but the personal attacks and
vituperation that you shower on people who don't agree with you. The
archives are _replete_ with such examples.

> In contrast, I am considering getting you removed from some
>professional organizations.

Brad, you apparently can't even get the remailer at replay.com to
cooperate with you. And you don't have any grounds for professional
complaints against me. Remember that the APA and the NYS licensing
board do not recognize your definition of "good science ethics." Nor
will they care about your screams of 'libel,' which is a civil matter.
You are literally wasting your threats. Just as you waste them when
you threaten to sue someone in England for libel. All you do is
demonstrate that you have a wholly inadequate understanding of libel
laws.

> Libel is something people do not approve of.
>YOU (and NOT I) are libelous.

<laughing>

>Organizations would find this more
>significant than any bad manners I've shown.

Actually, I don't think so. I think the APA would be much more
concerned about statements you've made about what you allegedly tell
people "as a counseling instructor." I think they would be much more
concerned about your attempting to con someone into believing that you
were a professor (even if you later clarified, your initial intention
was obvious). I think that they would be much more concerned about
all the sexually harassing remarks you make in the middle of
professional discussions and your deprecating language in talking
about children or adults with disabilities.

But go ahead... call them up or e-mail them and ask them. Want Billie
Hennefield's number, or do you still have it?

> The only thing ANYONE has ever seen illustrated about me is some "bad
>manners". And, my infractions are hardly serious. I may not be
>politically correct, but I'm no Howard Stern either.

Howard Stern is not an associate member of the APA. Howard Stern is
not in a teaching position. Then again, for all we know, you may not
be in a teaching position either.

> Only one of the two of us has distorted anything or lied. This again
>IS YOU.
>
><fart> <fart> <belch> (laughing so hard I could throw up on you>
>

Oh yes, that really shows people what you're made of.

>In article <33d5ae86...@news.pipeline.com>, lpa...@pipeline.com wrote:
>
>> >good...@hotmail.com (Cognitee) wrote:
>>

[Leslie E. Packer, PhD]

[alt.usenet.kooks added]

>good...@hotmail.com (Cognitee) wrote:

>Dear Leslie,

> There is NO WAY the post could be linked to me. YOU DIRTY, STINKING,
>LIBELOUS, DISGRACEFUL, UNETHICAL **STUPID**, ANAL, FILTHY LIAR.

Didn't you leave out 'fascist' and 'thug?' I hope you're not feeling
unwell and that's why you've run out of adjectives?

>mention that you are: USELESS, REPETITIVE, MALICIOUS, AND OFF-TOPIC,
>WASTING EVERYONE'S TIME AND A LOT OF BAND-WIDTH WITH UNSUBSTATIATED
>IRRELEVANT CRAP -- over and over and over and over and over and over and
>over again. You are the stupidest person I have ever seen and the most
>contemptible and disgraceful. Further you are the closest thing I have
>ever seem to a female psychopath. I believe you are a criminal.

<shaking head sadly> Brad, Brad, Brad.... you are losing touch with
reality. You haven't seen me.

Or have you? Are you seeing me? This is really cause for concern,
Brad.

As to being a criminal, well, no, the only crimes I've committed have
been speeding offenses. Perhaps that's what you meant? That I'm a
psychopath because I was in the Sports Car Club of America, love fast
driving and my dream car is a Porsche?

> On your other point (if we can call it that, since you refuse to even
>quote the post, it is so benign): The post of which you refer only
>mentions your name and provides your e-mail address. It in no way
>solicits e-mail, any more than any post wherea person's e-mail address is
>given. It *didn't* say: Mail Leslie. It just said Leslie <with such and
>such address> is ruining a newsgroup for many. That's it; that's the
>WHOLE story and the whole picture (as I recall it).
>

It was posted in an alt.sex group for the purpose of trying to get the
people there involved and/or to harass me. And as others pointed out,
your anonymous posts have certain signs and symbols that others have
come to recognize, and that post contained them. You say it wasn't
you. I think it was. So do a number of other people. Can I prove it?
No, but I don't need to. I'm entitled to my opinion and the
circumstantial evidence is more than sufficient for me and others to
form an opinion as to who either posted that or was behind it. Why
are you entitled to your opinions about who Anonymous is and others
are not entitled to their opinions?

>P.S. If I was a future prospective employer of yours and knew of your
>newsgroup behavior, I would never give you a job.

Irrelevant. I've been self-employed for 14 years and you don't seem
to have enough skills to be any kind of employer. Your time would be
better spent trying to secure a full-time position with some job
security.

> If I were your present
>employer, I won't trust you for anything.
>

Irrelevant, for the same reason. But I'm not surprised that you would
think about such things. You've apparently spent a lot of time
imagining how you might control or subjegate me. You really do seem
to have a problem with women. And I suspect that those of us who have
advanced degrees are especially frustrating to you. And of course,
I'm an advocate (a real one, unlike you), so I don't just run away and
cower when people say nasty things. To the contrary, I take action.

Wait. Watch. Be amazed. <g>

[Paul Bernhardt]

In article <33c7db92....@news.pipeline.com>, lpa...@pipeline.com wrote:

> Wait. Watch. Be amazed. <g>

Leslie, could you post the appropriate snail mail addresses for this (or
at least email them to me)? Others may have objections of which those of
us who have taken action are not aware and they may want to advise the
appropriate authorities.