Usual & Customary Psychologist Fees
Ed G.
What do you psychologists think is a reasonable fee for a psychologist
to write a 2-3 page report?
I've applied for disability in part on psychological grounds. My group
psychotherapist initially gave perfunctory, one word answers to Social
Security's questions (e.g., Q: Social Judgment?; A: Poor) and I need
her to go into more detail if my appeal is to succeed. She says she
wants $150 per hour to prepare a new report in which she supports her
answers with examples. Is this a fair price in your opinion? What
would you charge one of your patients for such a service? Is it usual
to charge on an hourly basis, rather than a flat rate for a completed
report?
One of my lawyer friends tells me that he has to pay doctors a minimum
of $500 for them to do original thinking about a case, as opposed to
writing the usual boilerplate report they send to the referring doc.
Does this sound about right to you? Any advice on how to ensure that I
get my money's worth?
Thanks for the help: as a patient it is sometimes hard to know whether
a fee, esp. for a one time service like writing a report, is fair or
not.
TribalNation
What do you psychologists think is a reasonable fee for a psychologist
> to write a 2-3 page report?
>
> I've applied for disability in part on psychological grounds. My group
> psychotherapist initially gave perfunctory, one word answers to Social
> Security's questions (e.g., Q: Social Judgment?; A: Poor) and I need
> her to go into more detail if my appeal is to succeed. She says she
> wants $150 per hour to prepare a new report in which she supports her
> answers with examples. Is this a fair price in your opinion? What
> would you charge one of your patients for such a service? Is it usual
> to charge on an hourly basis, rather than a flat rate for a completed
> report?
>
> One of my lawyer friends tells me that he has to pay doctors a minimum
> of $500 for them to do original thinking about a case, as opposed to
> writing the usual boilerplate report they send to the referring doc.
> Does this sound about right to you? Any advice on how to ensure that I
> get my money's worth?
Dear Patient,
Each psychologist works out their own fees. If $150/hr is the hourly fee
normally charged, then suggestive to schedule an hour of that therapist's
time and be physically present for it. Be advised to clarify that your
presence is required and the hour be pro-rated for over or under and hour's
time. If the $150/hr is outside you current financial ability, you might
consider addressing this first, perhaps negotiate a lower hourly fee or a
time payment arrangement. Sierra
Gene Douglas
TribalNation wrote:
>
> What do you psychologists think is a reasonable fee for a psychologist
> > to write a 2-3 page report?
> >
> > I've applied for disability in part on psychological grounds. My group
> > psychotherapist initially gave perfunctory, one word answers to Social
> > Security's questions (e.g., Q: Social Judgment?; A: Poor) and I need
> > her to go into more detail if my appeal is to succeed. She says she
> > wants $150 per hour to prepare a new report in which she supports her
> > answers with examples. Is this a fair price in your opinion? What
> > would you charge one of your patients for such a service? Is it usual
> > to charge on an hourly basis, rather than a flat rate for a completed
> > report?
> >
> > One of my lawyer friends tells me that he has to pay doctors a minimum
> > of $500 for them to do original thinking about a case, as opposed to
> > writing the usual boilerplate report they send to the referring doc.
> > Does this sound about right to you? Any advice on how to ensure that I
> > get my money's worth?
>
rent and utilities, yellow pages advertising, secretary, billing cost,
etc. There is the cost of clients who cancel on short notice or who
stand the psychologist up. There is the cost of eight years of college,
etc.
There is more involved than just 3 pages of paper. There is interview
time, and the time to make the report, which involves more than just
fast typing.
You might ask your lawyer friends how much they charge for an hour of
their time, or to file a 3 page paper at the courthouse.
Gene Douglas
TribalNation
Dear Mr. Douglas,
I would like to correct your misunderstanding of who posted this post
and inform you that TribalNation (Sierra-myself) did not post this, but
actually responded to this post with suggestions to poster on how to
perhaps proceed with what has been quoted below. Pls. see 24, May 1997
03:41:38 GMT for further clarification.
Professionally speaking, I bare no dispute to your response below
addressing the costs to overhead, maintenance and the time needed to
accumulate the needed information. I think that the poster was
sincerely uncertain about how this particular aspect of hiring is
accommodated financially. I did not gain an impression that the poster
was being critical but more confused and asking for a reality check.
Sierra
TribalNation
Hi Leslie,
No disrespect received on this end, Leslie. I've actually done both...your
preference and mine. For me, neither one had a comparable difference in quality
and time spent. Ime, I guess all that really matters is that one is able to do
the task in a way that works for everyone concerned. Having the clt present, I
was able to expedite by utilizing my own and clt's interpretation and feedback on
some of the questions asked on those government forms. Geez, have you ever had to
fill out one of those novels? Have I ever felt manipulated? No, not at all.
You know after I sent that response, I thought about the cap stuff and just found
myself internally barking that infamous line of..."Oh shoot, I wanted to
____________. Oh well."
Leslie E. Packer, PhD wrote:
>
> >TribalNation <4un...@gte.net> wrote, in response to an inquiry about fees for a report:
>
> >
> >Dear Patient,
> >
> >Each psychologist works out their own fees. If $150/hr is the hourly fee
> >normally charged, then suggestive to schedule an hour of that therapist's
> >time and be physically present for it. Be advised to clarify that your
> >presence is required and the hour be pro-rated for over or under and hour's
> >time. If the $150/hr is outside you current financial ability, you might
> >consider addressing this first, perhaps negotiate a lower hourly fee or a
> >time payment arrangement. Sierra
>
> Hi, Sierra,
>
> With all due respect, I have to disagree with what you're suggesting
> above. There is no way that I would want a patient to sit here in the
> office while I work on a report about them. In fact, their presence
> is a distraction and a form of subtle pressure (are they looking over
> my shoulder or trying to? do they understand that I need to stop and
> think and don't just sit here and compose? do they understand that I
> have to pull their chart to find specific items or points that I want
> to include? etc.).
>
> Some reports may take an hour or a bit more to do. Others may take me
> a couple of hours (if there are a lot of complications, etc.). If I
> charge for a report (some reports are done for no charge, depending on
> the situation), I usually charge my hourly rate but set a cap so that
> even if it takes me much longer, the patient doesn't have to pay for
> that -- at that point, I just figure that it shouldn't take me so damn
> long! <g>
>
> In this case, the patient might want to arrange for the therapist to
> prepare a report with the understanding that they will have an
> opportunity to go over it and discuss it before it is sent out. And
> that meeting time should be calculated into the fee arrangement. In
> that way, the client can be sure that she's gotten what she's paid for
> and that the therapist has included points that the patient thinks are
> relevant to disability determination.
>
> Regards,
>
> Leslie
Tim McNamara
> What do you psychologists think is a reasonable fee for a psychologist
> to write a 2-3 page report?
In order to write a 2-3 page report, the psychologist has to:
1. Make calendar time available (which means not scheduling a fee-paying
client)
2. Review your file (assuming you have one) and assemble the pertinent
information to be put into the report. You want them to spend the time it
takes to do this thoroughly.
3. Prepare a draft of the report, whether dictated, longhand or typed.
4. Have the report typed (if dictated or written longhand), which means
paying a typist.
5. Review the report to make sure that what is written is what is meant
and that the report is as complete and accurate as possible.
This may easily take an hour, depending on how familiar the clinician is
with writing this type of report. The Social Security Administration has
specific rules and guidelines for the information that must be included.
Usually the form sent out by the case reviewer at SSA is adequate for
their purposes and takes much less time. (I usually don't charge for
filling these forms out for established clients, since it is a relatively
quick procedure; if something out of the ordinary is required, that may be
a different matter).
In order to make sure that you "get your money's worth," as you put it,
you should request a copy of the report be provided to you. However, if
getting your money's worth only means getting your disability request
approved, you may be disappointed. The SSA's determination will depend on
whether your disability meets their criteria, not on the ability, skill or
report writing of your therapist. Your therapist could, conceivably,
undermine your chances with uncommunicative responses but probably cannot
guarantee that you will get disability benefit.
As an aside, in order for your clinician to be able to write a good, valid
report there has to have first been an evaluation of you as an
individual. Simply seeing you as part of a group really may not provide
adequate data on which to base a determination of ability or disability.
Your clinician had also best have good records about your case thus far,
since you will probably have signed a release allowing the SSA to request
copies of your chart.
Hope this helps.
Tim
--
Just a box of rain, I don't know who put it there.
Believe it if you need it or leave it if you dare.
-Robert Hunter
Cognitee
Dear Sierra (and Leslie),
Given the demonstrated skill level, efficiency, and effectiveness of
typical counselor/"therapist", I think $35/hr. should be plenty !!! One
can live on that !! They need not make a great living. "Therapists" can
not only work with the people, but live like them (though even their
ability to deal with people effectively when not collecting big $ and
having a "power" advantage has been drawn into question here, in this
newsgroup).
But, unfortunately "therapists" OFTEN think they are better than all
those with disorders they treat and often really have contempt for them
(this also has been illustrated in this newsgroup).
Cognitee
P.S. Sierra,
I think you should be clear that, while Leslie has some kind of license
(maybe, in "experimental psychology", in her goofy state of New York) and
though she does deal with some "cleints" (in particular, brain-damaged
people), she is NOT either a Clinical or Counseling Psychologist. The
"reports" she refers to generating are often reports on people with gross
skill deficits (like retarded people) and reports on neurological tests.
She is a behavior modification person, who actually has a job many of us
could get but wouldn't want. She often seems to be pretending to be a
big-shot "therapist" here, in this newsgroup. She is misleading people,
in my opinion. Her graduate degree is in experimental psychology and she
is a boring, stoggy, old-fashioned behaviorist, with an ego like Skinner's
(expect Walden III to come out any time now !!!) She seems very
pretentious and conceited. She appears to have learned nothing new sind
the early 1970s.
She likely makes little money herself. I think she once said she didn't
have enough to fix here broken-down station wagon (or whatever heap it was
she drove). Her major claim to fame is in being a mom (or at least this
was her big boast for a while) ; I don't recall her speaking of her
husband. Here major souirce of "status" (and she seems to love status)
may be this newsgroup and the pretending she can to here (seeming to be
whatever and pretending to be a know-it-all).
Ed G.
Tim, (and others!) I am not criticizing my psychologist's proposed fee.
I don't know whether her fee is reasonable or not. That's why I asked!
I am well aware that a lot goes into writing a report and I think you
did a good job of describing the work that goes into a report, much of
which may not be apparent to the layman. I believe strongly in *fairly*
compensating all persons--not just psychologists--who peform work on my
behalf.
I do note, however, that in the course of your lengthy reply you fail to
answer my question. Is $150 an hour to write a report a fair fee or
not, in your opinion? What would you charge one of your patients?
FWIW, she charged me $90 for a 45 minute individual therapy session back
in the late eighties.
I have heard it said that while sex was *the* taboo topic for the
Victorians, it is money, who gets paid how much and why, that is the
real taboo topic of the 20th Century. If you don't feel comfortable
discussing psychologists' fees in public, please write me privately at
gop...@cyberpass.net
Tim McNamara wrote:
> In order to make sure that you "get your money's worth," as you put it,
> you should request a copy of the report be provided to you. However, if
Do you think it is wrong for me to expect to get my money's worth? When
you pay a plumber $200 to fix your garbage disposal, do you expect your
drain to work afterwards? I sure do.
> getting your money's worth only means getting your disability request
> approved, you may be disappointed. The SSA's determination will depend on
> whether your disability meets their criteria, not on the ability, skill or
> report writing of your therapist. Your therapist could, conceivably,
> undermine your chances with uncommunicative responses but probably cannot
> guarantee that you will get disability benefit.
I am aware of this. I am not asking my psychologist to lie or even
exaggerate on my behalf.
Social Security has told me point blank that they cannot give her one
word answers much weight and that she needs to provide examples so that
they know what she means when, for example, she describes my social
judgment as poor. In my opinion, all she needs to do is to provide a few
strategic examples to support the answers she has already given.
> As an aside, in order for your clinician to be able to write a good, valid
> report there has to have first been an evaluation of you as an
> individual. Simply seeing you as part of a group really may not provide
> adequate data on which to base a determination of ability or disability.
> Your clinician had also best have good records about your case thus far,
> since you will probably have signed a release allowing the SSA to request
> copies of your chart.
Good point. I would be happy to meet with her although I don't think
that will be necessary. After seven years in her group, we probably
know each other better than many married couples. In addition, she
evaluated me prior to accepting me in the group and saw in individual
sessions several times in the late eighties.
I appreciate your frank comments and hope that you will not be offended
if I am equally frank. While I respect (and yes even highly value) the
work psychologists do, in my experience, their special psychological
expertise does not make them any more (or less) ethical than the rest of
humanity. It would be wonderful not to have to worry about being gouged
or otherwise taken advantage of by one's psychologist. Unfortunately,
my experience has been that in Psychology, as in the rest of life, it is
*Caveat Emptor*
Ed
ann
Ed G. wrote:
>
> Tim, (and others!) I am not criticizing my psychologist's proposed fee.
> I don't know whether her fee is reasonable or not. That's why I asked!
I'm "just" a consumer of mental health services and here are what folks
are charging around here (Boston area and west: psychologist fees are in
the low to mid hundreds for an hour of therapy while phsychiatrists fees
are hovering close to $200 per hour. Obviously, there are folks in
between, above and below.
In the past, my therapist has charged me the same hourly rate for writing
reports as for an hour of therapy, pro-rated based on how long the report
took. Most times, it was less than the hour.
If yours was charging $90 in late 80's, what is charging now for therapy?
Why not ask her why the fee is different for report writing as opposed to
therapy? You could also call around and ask what some fees are in your
area and/or if report writing is charged at a higher rate.
Good luck
Ann
Tim McNamara
In article <timmcn-2505...@dialup-298.minn.net>, tim...@minn.net
(Tim McNamara) wrote:
<snip>
The originla poster sent me a private e-mail noting that I managed to fail
to answer the question, to wit: what is the usual and customary fee for
psychological services?
The answer is complicated, depending on whether the clinician accepts
certain types of reimbursement (e.g., Medicare, HMOs. etc), location,
whether there is a sliding fee scale, etc. Private practice vs community
mental health center or other practice settings also affects price.
Around here the average fee seems to range between $100-125 per hour. I
have heard that in NYC it can go to $200 (but then NYC is generally more
expensive than where I live).
Tim
--
Reach out your hand if your cup is empty;
if your cup is full, may it be again.
-Robert Hunter
TribalNation
Leslie E. Packer, PhD wrote:
>
>
> >good...@hotmail.com (Cognitee, goofiness personified) wrote:
>
> >P.S. Sierra,
> > I think you should be clear that, while Leslie has some kind of license
> >(maybe, in "experimental psychology", in her goofy state of New York)
Hello Leslie,
In case you hadn't noticed, I didn't and don't intend on directly (and I emphasize
the "directly") this poster. Remember Beh.Mod.101A? <grin> I had a real
grand-stander once in a Methods, Theories, Issues psych class I was doing stand-in
teaching for...a real delusion of grandeur expose...despite repeated attempts to
clarify, redefine, etc. that we were discussing theory not person (myself) in this
class, he kept going full barrels. Finally, I drew the weapon of last resort...I
said, "Okay, you want to know what I believe? I believe this to be true and I
turned to the chalkboard and wrote the following:
What you persist, will resist you. What you resist, will persist you.
It must of been a big hit...he stopped upping the anty where no bet was ever placed
nor competition ever wagered on my part and nearly every student (some 65 or so)
wrote the quote down. <grin> I just love inherent, unargueable, noncontradictable
truths. I should have taught Philosophy, my sidearm passion.
Anyway, you might want to read a latest on Brad. It's an FAQ post on Brad (aka
Cognitee). A real eye opener.
Brad wrote:
> >who actually has a job many of us could get but wouldn't want.
> Oh, so "many of us" could be in private practice as a licensed
> psychologist? I don't think so, Brad -- at least, not you. First
> you'd have to get your doctorate, and that's something that seems to
> have eluded you. Then, of course, you'd also have to be employed for
> the equivalent of two years' full-time under supervision, and you
> probably couldn't do _that_, either
Most definitely wouldn't be able to complete bc he'd have to build up his "witness
mode" versus "persecution mode" and that'd be a major stretch I think.
> so you'd never even get to sit
> for the licensing examination (and if you did get to sit for it, I
> seriously doubt if you could pass it since it does have questions that
> test one's understanding of the APA's ethical standards, another area
> that seems to have eluded you).
Ummm "ethics" eh Leslie, that's that stuff that says you have LIMITS about how you
can behave with ppl you work with, right? That's stuff called "ethics" would
easily fall into Brad's concept of "censorship", don't you think? Now, how
therapeutic could he be, if he had to censor himself with a client? (laughing)
> Finally, assuming that you could get
> a doctorate, could get a job, could pass the test, and could set up a
> private practice, you'd have to have patients come to seek your help.
> And they'd have to be nuts to seek your help if you're anything like
> your posts in these usenet groups.
Maybe nuts if they stayed, but probably duped into getting there by somehow
thinking that help was really going to be available for them.
> But do tell us what you know about
> the brain or CNS and motor control or rehabilitation of motor control.
> And do tell us what you know about pediatric-onset neuropsychiatric
> disorders. If you could get my job, you should be able to demonstrate
> your understanding of these problem areas.
Ohhh, Ohhh pick me, pick me, Leslie....I know, I know the answers.
> >She often seems to be pretending to be a
> >big-shot "therapist" here, in this newsgroup. She is misleading people,
> >in my opinion.
Wow, I'm impressed. He actually took ownership of that one!
> Au contraire, your posts about yourself and others are the attempts at
> deception. If you're such a hot-shot personna grata at U. of
> Minnesota, let's see if you can get any of them to come here and post
> something to confirm it. Come on, Mr. World Renowned Ethologist,
> where are all these top people who think you're the cat's meow?
I think the FAQ mentioned at least NINE aliases...could these be his nine lives to
the cat's meow, Leslie?
> Deception? You mean like your claims that you have a Client Advocacy
> organization when it's clear that you've never represented any
> individual in any direct advocacy efforts or situations? We're all
> overwhelmed with the success of your alleged advocacy, Brad. So far
> all you've done is shoot off your mouth about how you are going to
> bring down the APA and how everyone takes you seriously. And this
> may come as a shock to you, but I doubt if there are more than a
> handful of people who might even believe you.
>
> >Her graduate degree is in experimental psychology
>
> Well, at least you got THAT right. <polite applause from the peanut
> gallery heard in the distance>
>
> >and she
> >is a boring, stoggy, old-fashioned behaviorist, with an ego like Skinner's
> >(expect Walden III to come out any time now !!!) She seems very
> >pretentious and conceited. She appears to have learned nothing new sind
> >the early 1970s.
>
> <chuckling> I have been accused of many things, but no one has ever
> said I was 'boring.' As to new learning, well, I do keep current, and
> note that it is you who seems stuck on research from the 1970s (shall
> we all sing the Strupp and Hadley Blues?)
So what can we speculate so far Leslie about this particular individual? We
observe delusions of grandeur, (i.e. a grandiose sense of self-importance, an
exaggeration of achievements and talents, is overtly hostile when confronted with
criticism, utilizes interpersonal exploitation by taking advantage of others
(posters) to achieve his own aims, appears preoccupied with brilliance and power,
exudes a sense of entitlement (7 out of 10 posts are his) and an unreasonable
expectation of special treatment from others. He also appears to require constant
attention and admiration where many of his posts are repeated and crossposted and
with numerous addendums preceeding the originals. 301.81 impo.
> > She likely makes little money herself.
>
> That's absolutely true. I treat a lot of patients for no fee. I have
> refused to sign on as a provider for any mangled care outfit. And I
> refuse to play the games with Medicaid and Medicare, and would rather
> just give away the service than spend a zillion hours doing paperwork
> to get $20 or whatever Medicaid now allows psychologists. And I am
> pleased to report that I have never turned down a patient who was a
> good candidate for therapy because they didn't have insurance or
> money. And I don't charge for advocacy services for the same reason.
> So no, I don't make a lot of money. But money was never my goal in
> going into psychology.
Ditto.
> If I want money, I can go back to academia
> (unlike you, apparently, I had been on a full-time tenure track line
> that I quit to go into clinical work).
>
> So if you'd like to make a contribution to the cause, donations are
> cheerfully accepted. Shall I give you the address for TSA so you can
> send your donation to support the advocacy work?
>
> BTW, your comment seems exceedingly hypocritical. First you criticize
> therapists for charging too much, then when you meet a therapist who
> isn't money-oriented, you suggest that it's some kind of evidence of
> poor quality, etc.
>
> <snip>
>
> >Her major claim to fame is in being a mom (or at least this
> >was her big boast for a while) ;
Hooray for you, Leslie! Boast some more about your good mothering. Most don't and
may never realize just how difficult that job really is.
> >Cont'd Cognitee:
> >Here major souirce of "status" (and she seems to love status)
> >may be this newsgroup and the pretending she can to here (seeming to be
> >whatever and pretending to be a know-it-all).
Leslie, would you consider this be an indication of projection here? I think so.
I've got to hand it to you, Leslie. You're way more willing to engage with this
person than I am. For me, life is too short for trivial pursuits. I'd rather
invest my time with those who possess a willingness to appreciate me as a person
with personal value and not some object to exploit at will. Sierra
Cognitee
Point is, Sierra:
Leslie Pacter is NOT *either* a Clinical or a Counseling
Psychologist. She does not deal with typical clients of any sort (like
you or me). She has clients with cognitive impairment (brain damage) and
is a "behavior mod." person. She is also apparently involved in
neurological testing. Here range of clients is VERY narrow. She is not
a practitioner who does a braod range of treatments, but is a "therapist"
in the narrow, though more proper and restricted, sense of a "behavior
therapist". MOST IMPORTANTLY for knowing what you are dealing with here
is the fact that here graduate degree is in Experimental Psychology.
This is fine for dealing with retards and similar cases, which is often
what see does.
Leslie, is a status monger. She seems to greatly love herself and the
fact that she has a Ph.D. (forget what type it is, and that it would be of
less interest to people if they knew) and she fulfills some license
requirements. This means the world to Leslie. From there she can
represent herself (misleadingly) as a know-it-all, do-it-all (when she is
not). Her other major source of status is working with the courts. She
seems to pretend to have a broader range of clients and to do a broader
range of treatments than she actually does. She often seems to pretend to
be a "therapist", in the improper broad vain-glorious sense in which the
word is often used here in this newsgroup (and in the broad, vague sense
of the word as it was used by old-time doctors and Freudians).
I suspect she has a very lousy job and makes little money. Many could
have her job, if anybody wanted it.
In article <338e219e...@news.pipeline.com>, lpa...@pipeline.com wrote:
> [follow-ups trimmed yet again]
>
> >good...@hotmail.com (Cognitee, goofiness personified) wrote:
>
> >P.S. Sierra,
> > I think you should be clear that, while Leslie has some kind of license
> >(maybe, in "experimental psychology", in her goofy state of New York)
>
> There is only one license in NYS, and that is as a 'psychologist.'
> That's been explained to you many times before. Check the archives
> from spm and spp from August of last year.
>
> <snip>
>
> >The
> >"reports" she refers to generating are often reports on people with gross
> >skill deficits (like retarded people) and reports on neurological tests.
>
> I report on tests and procedures that are relevant to the patient's
> therapy with me.
>
> >She is a behavior modification person,
>
> Straight beh mod is the smallest part of my practice. I was trained
> in behavior mod, yes. But I also had other training and utilize and
> integrate a number of techniques and approaches in my work.
>
> >who actually has a job many of us
> >could get but wouldn't want.
>
> Oh, so "many of us" could be in private practice as a licensed
> psychologist? I don't think so, Brad -- at least, not you. First
> you'd have to get your doctorate, and that's something that seems to
> have eluded you. Then, of course, you'd also have to be employed for
> the equivalent of two years' full-time under supervision, and you
> probably couldn't do _that_, either, so you'd never even get to sit
> for the licensing examination (and if you did get to sit for it, I
> seriously doubt if you could pass it since it does have questions that
> test one's understanding of the APA's ethical standards, another area
> that seems to have eluded you). Finally, assuming that you could get
> a doctorate, could get a job, could pass the test, and could set up a
> private practice, you'd have to have patients come to seek your help.
> And they'd have to be nuts to seek your help if you're anything like
> your posts in these usenet groups. But do tell us what you know about
> the brain or CNS and motor control or rehabilitation of motor control.
> And do tell us what you know about pediatric-onset neuropsychiatric
> disorders. If you could get my job, you should be able to demonstrate
> your understanding of these problem areas.
>
> >She often seems to be pretending to be a
> >big-shot "therapist" here, in this newsgroup. She is misleading people,
> >in my opinion.
>
> Au contraire, your posts about yourself and others are the attempts at
> deception. If you're such a hot-shot personna grata at U. of
> Minnesota, let's see if you can get any of them to come here and post
> something to confirm it. Come on, Mr. World Renowned Ethologist,
> where are all these top people who think you're the cat's meow?
>
> Deception? You mean like your claims that you have a Client Advocacy
> organization when it's clear that you've never represented any
> individual in any direct advocacy efforts or situations? We're all
> overwhelmed with the success of your alleged advocacy, Brad. So far
> all you've done is shoot off your mouth about how you are going to
> bring down the APA and how everyone takes you seriously. And this
> may come as a shock to you, but I doubt if there are more than a
> handful of people who might even believe you.
>
> >Her graduate degree is in experimental psychology
>
> Well, at least you got THAT right. <polite applause from the peanut
> gallery heard in the distance>
>
> >and she
> >is a boring, stoggy, old-fashioned behaviorist, with an ego like Skinner's
> >(expect Walden III to come out any time now !!!) She seems very
> >pretentious and conceited. She appears to have learned nothing new sind
> >the early 1970s.
>
> <chuckling> I have been accused of many things, but no one has ever
> said I was 'boring.' As to new learning, well, I do keep current, and
> note that it is you who seems stuck on research from the 1970s (shall
> we all sing the Strupp and Hadley Blues?)
>
> > She likely makes little money herself.
>
> That's absolutely true. I treat a lot of patients for no fee. I have
> refused to sign on as a provider for any mangled care outfit. And I
> refuse to play the games with Medicaid and Medicare, and would rather
> just give away the service than spend a zillion hours doing paperwork
> to get $20 or whatever Medicaid now allows psychologists. And I am
> pleased to report that I have never turned down a patient who was a
> good candidate for therapy because they didn't have insurance or
> money. And I don't charge for advocacy services for the same reason.
> So no, I don't make a lot of money. But money was never my goal in
> going into psychology. If I want money, I can go back to academia
> (unlike you, apparently, I had been on a full-time tenure track line
> that I quit to go into clinical work).
>
> So if you'd like to make a contribution to the cause, donations are
> cheerfully accepted. Shall I give you the address for TSA so you can
> send your donation to support the advocacy work?
>
> BTW, your comment seems exceedingly hypocritical. First you criticize
> therapists for charging too much, then when you meet a therapist who
> isn't money-oriented, you suggest that it's some kind of evidence of
> poor quality, etc.
>
> <snip>
>
> >Her major claim to fame is in being a mom (or at least this
> >was her big boast for a while) ;
>
> You will, of course, substantiate that inane assertion with some posts
> from the archives?
>
> >Here major souirce of "status" (and she seems to love status)
> >may be this newsgroup and the pretending she can to here (seeming to be
> >whatever and pretending to be a know-it-all).
>
> If I have any source of 'status,' it's from my work in the TS
> community. And that's easy enough to find out about. And before
> that, my major source of 'status' was being known as the 'jinx of
> Lime Rock" (but you'd have to be into race track safety work to
> appreciate that very elevated status <chortling>).
Dan Rogers
I think your question is reasonable and fair.
In my own state (Iowa), charges for most psychological services range
from about $80 and hour to about $150 an hour, unless it is a forensic
case. Then the rates increase substantially in many cases.
In a forensic case, I personally charge 40% higher rates, for several
reasons. First, the level of skill is quite a bit higher. Also, the
work is much more difficult. And there are more hidden costs.
A charge of $150 an hour would be near the low end of the scale if it
is a forensic case. Some colleagues with very specialized expertise
charge $400 an hour and up. Court testimony and deposition charges are
even higher.
If the professional is not doing forensic work, then the rate for a
report should (probably) not be higher. It should be about the same as
for other office work. Office overhead (such as typing and rewriting)
should be included as just part of the charge for actual time.
However, there is another question: Why wasn't the original report
adequate? If the original report was not thorough, did not adequately
present all the data, then there was a failure. On the other hand, if
the purpose of the original report and the purpose of the new one are
different, then the first assessment might not have addressed the same
sorts of issues as are now needed, and a new evaluation might be needed.
Or, the old data might be outdated for the present purpose.
Of course, the old data might be suitable, and it is now a matter of
writing to a different audience. The charge should not be more than
expected for other clinical work, still.
I usually do such re-writing for no charge. It just doesn't seem fair
for the client to have to pay for a report that should have been clear
and comprehensive enough to cover any audience. In most cases, I
actually just have to leave our some data or findings, and just shorten
the report. To make this task easier, I never include raw data in the
report, but instead put it in an Appendix at the end and refer to it
in the body of the report.
Ed G. wrote:
>
> Tim, (and others!) I am not criticizing my psychologist's proposed fee.
> I don't know whether her fee is reasonable or not. That's why I asked!
>
Dan Rogers
Cognitee wrote:
>
> Dear Sierra (and Leslie),
> Given the demonstrated skill level, efficiency, and effectiveness of
> typical counselor/"therapist", I think $35/hr. should be plenty !!! One
> can live on that !! They need not make a great living.
That's a really unknowledgeable statement. A charge of $35 an hour,
in an office with low overhead (20%) would result in an annual income of
less that $20,000 a year. No psychologist I know of comes close to
making an hourly income at the level of their hourly charge.
A large portion of fees cannot be applied to all the work. For example,
you cannot charge for report writing, record keeping, test scoring and
interpreting, etc., when the payment is by many 3rd party payers, govern-
ment agencies, or HMOs. One govenrment agency reimburses me $45 an hour,
but it actually boils down to $7 to $8 an hour, when I have to account
for all my time and the computer-scored tests I have to use in order
to answer the questions. I give the tests in spite of my losses, because
the clients deserve the quality of care.
I have very low overhead in my office, because I do most of the work
myself in order to keep costs down. Most offices have overhead of
30% to 40%. A charge of $35 an hour would, if every hour of work were
billed and paid, result in an income of $42,00 a year. Since far less
of the time can be billed and collected, then actual income would run
closer, again, to $20,000 a year.
As you often do, you criticize those who work when you do not.
Then, of course, you lapse into your underlying anger and disappointment:
> But, unfortunately "therapists" OFTEN think they are better than all
> those with disorders they treat and often really have contempt for them
> (this also has been illustrated in this newsgroup).
Your unfortunate experience at being terminated from a program shows in
your biased statements here.
Gene Douglas
Keep in mind that Social Security has an irrational way of deciding
claims. They will turn down the first and the appeal most of the time,
for the screwiest of reasons. However, the second appeal goes before an
administrative judge, and is usually approved.
If there isn't much money involved, a private lawyer probably won't take
the case. You would then be asked to get a letter from a lawyer to that
effect, in order that Legal Aid can take it.
Gene Douglas
Cognitee
Dear Sierra,
Your morals are corrupt to accept a supposed "FAQ" with no supporting
evidence.
The "lastest" on Brad, as you call the FALSE "FAQ", has been posted
monthly in essentially the same form for the last 7 months (it is thus
certainly **knowingly** filled with lies, since I have corrected several
parts repeatedly). It contains esseantially the inappropriate FAQ begun
by Paul Bernhardt. This in fact well illustrates the improprieties that
some of the moderators-elect have engaged in. You can herald this thing
as the best thing since sliced bread; this is also the way many Germans
thought of Hitler.
P.S. Sierra: Have you heard of e-mail? Your post is entitled: "Re:
Usual & Customary Psychologist Fees (Leslie from Sierra)"
Gene Douglas
The below is a rant by a person who obviously knows nothing about it.
In fact, I once wrote to an HMO telling them that I would be glad to
work for that much, if they would guarantee to keep me busy. No answer.
The HMO's would apparently rather pay twice that and maintain their
present system. But the writer should keep in mind that even an
automobile mechanic charges at least $35 an hour. But he obviously
doesn't live on that, considering overhead, etc.
Much of the cost is in unfilled time, or time spend waiting for clients
who stand the therapist up. If clients in an HMO knew they had to pay
for a standup before they would be seen again at HMO expense, they would
be more responsible about cancelling properly.
Also keep in mind that paperwork time is free. Nobody pays for that,
but the therapist is working, just the same. I recently hired a billing
company to take some of the load off of me, and I am shuddering at their
fees. But I shudder more at getting months behind on my paperwork.
Then there are the inevitable conflicts with HMO's. They wait to months
to reply to a letter, when then bears no relation to what you wrote to
them, or they keep you on hold for 20 minutes (and as much as 45
minutes) while your own clock keeps ticking. You aren't seeing any
clients, and you aren't making a dime, but you are working, just the
same.
It all adds up. By the time you've paid your taxes, there isn't a lot
of that $100 fee left.
Then, there's the question of a sliding scale. If you charge $25 to
everybody, you'd starve. But if you charge $100 to everybody, some
people would have to do without, and you might have big holes in your
calendar. Better $25 than zero. So you end up charging $35 to some,
$50 to others, and putting up with the matters I mentioned above.
After a few years, if you're lucky, your schedule may stay full, and you
may have full page ads in the yellow pages, and you may be taking just
$100 clients. But by that time, you're paying yourself back for the
years when your office wasn't that busy, and the years in school when
you were the one doing the paying.
Gene Douglas
Cognitee wrote:
>
> Dear Sierra (and Leslie),
> Given the demonstrated skill level, efficiency, and effectiveness of
> typical counselor/"therapist", I think $35/hr. should be plenty !!! One
> can live on that !! They need not make a great living. "Therapists" can
> not only work with the people, but live like them (though even their
> ability to deal with people effectively when not collecting big $ and
> having a "power" advantage has been drawn into question here, in this
> newsgroup).
Decimal Point
Ya know originally, when this question first appeared I was a bit
uninterested.. but I have been VERY interested in knowing how
Dan and Leslie have approached clients that could not pay or who's 3rd
party payer would not pay! It is really good to know that there are still
those among you that hold such strong ethics in regard to the client. Thank
you all that do.. and this makes it easier as a client myself to continue
without general suspicion that the rates are too high or that I am not getting
enough for the money.
Take Care
D.Barker
In article <3389D1...@ia.frontiercomm.net> Dan Rogers
<dlro...@ia.frontiercomm.net> writes:>From: Dan Rogers
<dlro...@ia.frontiercomm.net>>Subject: Psychologist Fees (Brad's lack of work
experience)>Date: Mon, 26 May 1997 11:07:09 -0700
>Cognitee wrote:
>>
>> Dear Sierra (and Leslie),
>> Given the demonstrated skill level, efficiency, and effectiveness of
>> typical counselor/"therapist", I think $35/hr. should be plenty !!! One
>> can live on that !! They need not make a great living.
>That's a really unknowledgeable statement. A charge of $35 an hour,
>in an office with low overhead (20%) would result in an annual income of
>less that $20,000 a year. No psychologist I know of comes close to
>making an hourly income at the level of their hourly charge.
>A large portion of fees cannot be applied to all the work. For example,
>you cannot charge for report writing, record keeping, test scoring and
>interpreting, etc., when the payment is by many 3rd party payers, govern-
>ment agencies, or HMOs. One govenrment agency reimburses me $45 an hour,
>but it actually boils down to $7 to $8 an hour, when I have to account
>for all my time and the computer-scored tests I have to use in order
>to answer the questions. I give the tests in spite of my losses, because
>the clients deserve the quality of care.
>I have very low overhead in my office, because I do most of the work
>myself in order to keep costs down. Most offices have overhead of
>30% to 40%. A charge of $35 an hour would, if every hour of work were
>billed and paid, result in an income of $42,00 a year. Since far less
>of the time can be billed and collected, then actual income would run
>closer, again, to $20,000 a year.
>As you often do, you criticize those who work when you do not.
>Then, of course, you lapse into your underlying anger and disappointment:
>> But, unfortunately "therapists" OFTEN think they are better than all
>> those with disorders they treat and often really have contempt for them
>> (this also has been illustrated in this newsgroup).
Cognitee
Dear Dan,
$20,000 per year is what I had in mind. Plenty. Possibly more than
many deserve.
In article <3389D1...@ia.frontiercomm.net>, Dan Rogers
Cognitee
Dear D. Barker,
PLEASE NOTE: You may have been mislead !!!:
Leslie likely doesn't "approach her clients" to offer services -- they
are likely institutionalized or hospitalized !!!! I doubt she is
"approaching" any clients (except as she moves towards them physically
with her body across the room). Did you KNOW: Leslie is an Experimental
Psychologist (and ***NOT*** a clinical or counsleing psychologist). She
works with brain damaged people and does behavior modification (a simple
process, likely low paid). She works with persons who lack cognitive
capacity (i.e. many are like retards).
Dan Rogers no doubt has to scrounge in a crappy old isolated Iowa town.
In article <barkerj.27...@azstarnet.com>, bar...@azstarnet.com
(Decimal Point) wrote:
> Ya know originally, when this question first appeared I was a bit
> uninterested.. but I have been VERY interested in knowing how
> Dan and Leslie have approached clients that could not pay or who's 3rd
> party payer would not pay! It is really good to know that there are still
> those among you that hold such strong ethics in regard to the client. Thank
> you all that do.. and this makes it easier as a client myself to continue
> without general suspicion that the rates are too high or that I am not
getting
> enough for the money.
>
> Take Care
> D.Barker
>
>
> In article <3389D1...@ia.frontiercomm.net> Dan Rogers
> <dlro...@ia.frontiercomm.net> writes:>From: Dan Rogers
> <dlro...@ia.frontiercomm.net>>Subject: Psychologist Fees (Brad's lack
of work
> experience)>Date: Mon, 26 May 1997 11:07:09 -0700
>
Cognitee
Dear Leslie,
Good science ethics (and good morals for that matter) have to do with
basing opinions on evidence that you can cite to others and that are
amenable to independent verification (sound familiar -- thought you
knew). There is the "codification" of the main ethic involved, anyway.
This is an ethic you broke repeatedly for months, even as you promulgated
the complete lies of Diane against me (just to harass and libel me). You
never were person enough to apologize, though I know you NEVER saw any
evidence (there was NONE for Diane's charges -- they were completely
false).
P.S. Right here is YET ANOTHER false and libelous statement for which you
could produce ****NO evidence*****: "There have been over 100 screen
names in the last two years." If I ever saw you in court I would clean
your clock. If you just had any money....
<smiling broadly, with great self-satisfaction>
PLEASE EVERYONE NOTE: LESLIE IS AN EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGIST, AND **NOT**
A COUNSELING OR CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGIST -- she may have mislead you here.
She has a job clinical people need not take (and likely pays very
little). She possibly just had to take her job because it was all her
worthless degree could get her.
In article <33abfb18...@news.pipeline.com>, lpa...@pipeline.com wrote:
> >TribalNation <4un...@gte.net> wrote:
>
> >Leslie E. Packer, PhD wrote:
> >>
> >> [follow-ups trimmed yet again]
> >>
> >> >good...@hotmail.com (Cognitee, goofiness personified) wrote:
> >>
> >> >P.S. Sierra,
> >> > I think you should be clear that, while Leslie has some kind of license
> >> >(maybe, in "experimental psychology", in her goofy state of New York)
> >
> >Hello Leslie,
> >
> <snip of background with student's behavior>
> >
> > What you persist, will resist you. What you resist, will persist you.
> >
> >It must of been a big hit...he stopped upping the anty where no bet was
ever placed
> >nor competition ever wagered on my part and nearly every student (some
65 or so)
> >wrote the quote down. <grin> I just love inherent, unargueable,
noncontradictable
> >truths. I should have taught Philosophy, my sidearm passion.
>
> So if I resist thoughts of getting a Porsche, then does one show up in
> my driveway? <GG>
>
> Great story, Sierra, and yes, I do appreciate your point.
> >
> >Anyway, you might want to read a latest on Brad. It's an FAQ post on
Brad (aka
> >Cognitee). A real eye opener.
> >
> That FAQ, or previous versions, has been posted in the
> psychology-related usenet groups for quite a while. And I agree with
> what John Price said: that if it was submitted to sppm, it should be
> rejected.
>
> >Brad wrote:
> >> >who actually has a job many of us could get but wouldn't want.
> >
> >> Oh, so "many of us" could be in private practice as a licensed
> >> psychologist? I don't think so, Brad -- at least, not you. First
> >> you'd have to get your doctorate, and that's something that seems to
> >> have eluded you. Then, of course, you'd also have to be employed for
> >> the equivalent of two years' full-time under supervision, and you
> >> probably couldn't do _that_, either
> >
> >Most definitely wouldn't be able to complete bc he'd have to build up
his "witness
> >mode" versus "persecution mode" and that'd be a major stretch I think.
> >
> >> so you'd never even get to sit
> >> for the licensing examination (and if you did get to sit for it, I
> >> seriously doubt if you could pass it since it does have questions that
> >> test one's understanding of the APA's ethical standards, another area
> >> that seems to have eluded you).
> >
> >Ummm "ethics" eh Leslie, that's that stuff that says you have LIMITS
about how you
> >can behave with ppl you work with, right? That's stuff called "ethics"
would
> >easily fall into Brad's concept of "censorship", don't you think? Now, how
> >therapeutic could he be, if he had to censor himself with a client?
(laughing)
>
> Brad tosses the accusations about 'ethical' violations around fairly
> lightly, IMO. When challenged/threatened, he then backs off and says
> that he is not talking about the APA Ethical Guidelines which he
> treats somewhat dismissively (despite the fact that in joining the
> APA, even as an associate member, he had to agree to be bound by those
> very standards). He starts talking about what he calls 'good science
> ethics.' I have yet to see any codification of such alleged 'good
> science ethics.'
> >
> >> Finally, assuming that you could get
> >> a doctorate, could get a job, could pass the test, and could set up a
> >> private practice, you'd have to have patients come to seek your help.
> >> And they'd have to be nuts to seek your help if you're anything like
> >> your posts in these usenet groups.
> >
> >Maybe nuts if they stayed, but probably duped into getting there by somehow
> >thinking that help was really going to be available for them.
>
> Point taken.
> >
> >> But do tell us what you know about
> >> the brain or CNS and motor control or rehabilitation of motor control.
> >> And do tell us what you know about pediatric-onset neuropsychiatric
> >> disorders. If you could get my job, you should be able to demonstrate
> >> your understanding of these problem areas.
> >
> >Ohhh, Ohhh pick me, pick me, Leslie....I know, I know the answers.
> >
> <laughing> I'm not surprised that you do, or would know the answers.
> But since he implied _he_ could 'get her job' etc., I'd like to see
> the demonstration of his alleged knowledge or skills.
>
> >> >She often seems to be pretending to be a
> >> >big-shot "therapist" here, in this newsgroup. She is misleading people,
> >> >in my opinion.
> >
> >Wow, I'm impressed. He actually took ownership of that one!
> >
> The distinction between assertions, which may be libelous, and
> expressing opinions, clearly identified as just his opinions has been
> made clear to him previously (frequently in the context of threats of
> legal or professional action against him).
>
> >> Au contraire, your posts about yourself and others are the attempts at
> >> deception. If you're such a hot-shot personna grata at U. of
> >> Minnesota, let's see if you can get any of them to come here and post
> >> something to confirm it. Come on, Mr. World Renowned Ethologist,
> >> where are all these top people who think you're the cat's meow?
> >
> >I think the FAQ mentioned at least NINE aliases...could these be his
nine lives to
> >the cat's meow, Leslie?
> >
> There have been over 100 screen names in the last two years.
>
> <snip of his one correct statement that my background is in
> experimental psychology>
> >>
> >> >and she
> >> >is a boring, stoggy, old-fashioned behaviorist, with an ego like Skinner's
> >> >(expect Walden III to come out any time now !!!) She seems very
> >> >pretentious and conceited. She appears to have learned nothing new sind
> >> >the early 1970s.
> >>
> >> <chuckling> I have been accused of many things, but no one has ever
> >> said I was 'boring.' As to new learning, well, I do keep current, and
> >> note that it is you who seems stuck on research from the 1970s (shall
> >> we all sing the Strupp and Hadley Blues?)
> >
> >So what can we speculate so far Leslie about this particular individual? We
> >observe delusions of grandeur, (i.e. a grandiose sense of
self-importance, an
> >exaggeration of achievements and talents, is overtly hostile when
confronted with
> >criticism, utilizes interpersonal exploitation by taking advantage of others
> >(posters) to achieve his own aims, appears preoccupied with brilliance
and power,
> >exudes a sense of entitlement (7 out of 10 posts are his) and an
unreasonable
> >expectation of special treatment from others. He also appears to
require constant
> >attention and admiration where many of his posts are repeated and
crossposted and
> >with numerous addendums preceeding the originals. 301.81 impo.
>
> Well, you're certainly not the first to raise that diagnosis, but I
> have not, and will not engage in speculating about whether someone is
> diagnosable or what their diagnosis might be. To me, that crosses the
> line, Sierra. I think it's one thing if someone posts something in
> cyberspace seeking input or possible diagnosis and professionals
> respond within a context of trying to be helpful, but it is another
> thing if we just start diagnosing people who have not sought diagnosis
> or our opinion -- particularly when we may be angry at that individual
> or looking for a way to 'hurt' them psychologically. If people want
> to speculate or gossip among themselves in e-mail, that's something
> else, but I think that for people to go around trying to suggest that
> Brad, Curio, or GeneDoug are mentally ill and/or diagnosable is not
> really something we want to get into.
> >
> >> > She likely makes little money herself.
> >>
> >> That's absolutely true. I treat a lot of patients for no fee. I have
> >> refused to sign on as a provider for any mangled care outfit. And I
> >> refuse to play the games with Medicaid and Medicare, and would rather
> >> just give away the service than spend a zillion hours doing paperwork
> >> to get $20 or whatever Medicaid now allows psychologists. And I am
> >> pleased to report that I have never turned down a patient who was a
> >> good candidate for therapy because they didn't have insurance or
> >> money. And I don't charge for advocacy services for the same reason.
> >> So no, I don't make a lot of money. But money was never my goal in
> >> going into psychology.
> >
> >Ditto.
>
> <smiling> Nice to meet another one...
> >
> <snip>
> >>
> >> >Her major claim to fame is in being a mom (or at least this
> >> >was her big boast for a while) ;
> >
> >Hooray for you, Leslie! Boast some more about your good mothering.
Most don't and
> >may never realize just how difficult that job really is.
>
> Well, I do enjoy motherhood (usually on alternate Tuesdays, and
> generally when the kids are sleeping <g>), but I have not suggested it
> is any claim to fame anywhere. As to whether it is 'good
> mothering,' we'd have to operationally define that concept, I suppose:
>
> Does threatening the children with death less than once every 24 hours
> count? <G>
>
> >
> >
> >> >Cont'd Cognitee:
> >> >Here major souirce of "status" (and she seems to love status)
> >> >may be this newsgroup and the pretending she can to here (seeming to be
> >> >whatever and pretending to be a know-it-all).
> >
> >Leslie, would you consider this be an indication of projection here? I
think so.
>
> ROFL! Yeah (identifying defense mechanisms is not the same as
> diagnosing, so that's fair game).
>
> >I've got to hand it to you, Leslie. You're way more willing to engage
with this
> >person than I am.
>
> Well, he's frequently in the killfile. I took him out for purposes of
> the RFD threads, and decided to try to hold a reasonable discussion
> with him... and for a while, he conducted himself reasonably and I was
> actually enjoying the exchange of ideas. Then he 'lost it' again...
>
> > For me, life is too short for trivial pursuits. I'd rather
> >invest my time with those who possess a willingness to appreciate me as
a person
> >with personal value and not some object to exploit at will. Sierra
>
> That's the value of killfiles. And of course, if and when sppm is
> created, things should be a tad better over there and you can spend
> more time there if spp is too polluted.
>
> Regards,
>
> Leslie
Cognitee
Dear Leslie,
You read the sentence one way, Leslie. Now try reading it the other
equally valid way.
ON the main matter: why don't you tell us what you do do? Come right
out; be complete. MANY here who are talking to you about "your
profession", don't know what you do !!!! I know you are an Experimental
Psychologist and NOT a clinician. But you seem to be deceptive when one
tries to get the full story of your job. I thought I had figured it out
from the bits and pieces you have said. Please, PRAY TELL, what is your
job?
Do you work with spastics, not retards??? What do you do other than
behavior mod? Why the big interest in neurology, if you do no testing
here?? Why are you such a creep and always interested in "court" issues.
How do you figure you are a big shot??
P.S. Leslie, low money is just one sign of a crappy job, but such a job
is usually crappy in more than one way. Given the behavior I have
observed from you, you likely beat the poor spastics, if they don't smile
for you. Aversive conditioning: Smile to avoid "aversive stimulation"
<I know you have me smiling !!!>
In article <33b2fc41...@news.pipeline.com>, lpa...@pipeline.com wrote:
> >good...@hotmail.com (Cognitee) wrote:
>
> >Point is, Sierra:
> > Leslie Pacter is NOT *either* a Clinical or a Counseling
> >Psychologist. She does not deal with typical clients of any sort (like
> >you or me).
>
> We've seen no indication that you deal with ANY clients, Brad. Now
> you're trying to somehow align yourself with Sierra as if you and she
> are colleagues? Yeah, right. Tell us all about how many clients you
> work with and how you work with them individually. Go on. We're all
> waiting.
>
> > She has clients with cognitive impairment (brain damage)
>
> Every time I think you've sunk to the absolute nadir of stupidity, you
> manage to prove me wrong and sink even lower.
>
> Do you understand the difference between 'motor' and 'cognitive,' as
> the terms are generally used?
>
> >and
> >is a "behavior mod." person.
>
> Reading comprehension problems kicking in again? I had just told you,
> in the post you are responding to, that:
>
> >> Straight beh mod is the smallest part of my practice.
>
> And you go and repeat your inane assertion that I'm a behavior mod.
> person.
>
> Dan Rogers appears to be correct in much of what he says about you.
>
> >She is also apparently involved in
> >neurological testing.
>
> Really? News to me....
>
> >Here range of clients is VERY narrow.
>
> I've already stated that. Then again, you have no range of clients
> since you have no clients, so what the hell are you mouthing off
> about?
>
> >She is not
> >a practitioner who does a braod range of treatments,
>
> True.
>
> > but is a "therapist"
> >in the narrow, though more proper and restricted, sense of a "behavior
> >therapist".
>
> Wrong.
>
> >MOST IMPORTANTLY for knowing what you are dealing with here
> >is the fact that here graduate degree is in Experimental Psychology.
> >This is fine for dealing with retards and similar cases, which is often
> >what see does.
>
> Is this what you teach your students, Brad?
>
> And you wonder why people may contact your employer to complain about
> you?
>
> > Leslie, is a status monger. She seems to greatly love herself and the
> >fact that she has a Ph.D. (forget what type it is, and that it would be of
> >less interest to people if they knew) and she fulfills some license
> >requirements. This means the world to Leslie.
>
> Nope. What means the world to me is seeing kids smiling and
> functioning. What means the world to me is seeing kids be able to get
> off medications and manage themselves. What means the world to me is
> seeing a patient who initially was dependent on everyone able to take
> care of themselves and return to the workforce. What means the world
> to me is an open road in a fast car or sitting down by the ocean when
> the beach is closed.
>
> BTW, I didn't get my license until it became clear to me that it was
> in the patient's best financial interests for me to do so as it made
> the difference between them being covered for therapy or not.
>
> >From there she can
> >represent herself (misleadingly) as a know-it-all, do-it-all (when she is
> >not).
>
> License doesn't confer expertise. Training and experience do. Which
> leaves you out on both counts, doesn't it?
>
> As Sierra suggested, there seems to be a lot of projection evident in
> your posts, Brad.
>
> >Her other major source of status is working with the courts. She
> >seems to pretend to have a broader range of clients and to do a broader
> >range of treatments than she actually does.
>
> Don't confuse the treatment with the advocacy.
>
> >She often seems to pretend to
> >be a "therapist", in the improper broad vain-glorious sense in which the
> >word is often used here in this newsgroup (and in the broad, vague sense
> >of the word as it was used by old-time doctors and Freudians).
>
> I guess you've conveniently forgotten that I was the one who didn't
> want her to present herself as a therapist/psychologist just to avoid
> confusion with the common usage of the term. Others have pointed out
> to me that I should use the terms because what I do _is_ properly
> within the context of those endeavors.
>
> > I suspect she has a very lousy job
>
> Boy have you got _that_ wrong!
>
> > and makes little money.
>
> Absolutely true.
>
> >Many could
> >have her job, if anybody wanted it.
> >
> Most people, upon learning the details of my work and activities, say
> that they would find it too stressful or too depressing. I do not
> find it depressing. Stresssful, yes, but not depressing (or at least
> not usually.. there have been a few exceptions).
>
> You, however, could neither learn my work nor perform it with any
> modicum of efficacy. I am reminded of one of my patients whom another
> therapist tried to place in a volunteer position, but he (the
> patient) was so disabled that he was of no help to anyone and they
> landed up having to help and take care of him. That's how I think you
> would be if you ever tried to do any real client intervention or
> genuine advocacy.
>
> Leslie
Ed Anderson
>>good...@hotmail.com (Cognitee) wrote:
>
>>Point is, Sierra:
>> Leslie Pacter is NOT *either* a Clinical or a Counseling
>>Psychologist. She does not deal with typical clients of any sort
(like
>>you or me).
Oh, good Brad, you are certainly *not* a typical client.
Ed
Arwen
I find the comments noted below to be incredibly offensive. These are
the rants of an insensitive, arrogant and spiteful person. Brad calls
himself a "client advocate". Seems to me the only thing he advocates
is his own ideas. I've read this group everyday for two years and I am
sick of reading his mean-spirited, self-promoting, repetitive writings.
I'm sick of his lying, his paranoia, and his attack dog methods. I
would hope that in the moderated group comments like these would be
rejected. I look forward to the bote.
>>I snipped most of the post because I was only responding to this part
of it. If I'm not following proper netiquette, I'm sorry."
In <good_brad-260...@ts003d02.mns-mn.concentric.net>
good...@hotmail.com (Cognitee) writes:
>
>Dear Leslie,
Tim McNamara
> I appreciate your frank comments and hope that you will not be offended
> if I am equally frank. While I respect (and yes even highly value) the
> work psychologists do, in my experience, their special psychological
> expertise does not make them any more (or less) ethical than the rest of
> humanity. It would be wonderful not to have to worry about being gouged
> or otherwise taken advantage of by one's psychologist. Unfortunately,
> my experience has been that in Psychology, as in the rest of life, it is
> *Caveat Emptor*
Yes, I am afraid that I would have to agree with you there. Many
psychologists approach their work as some sort of sacred trust, but not
all. Life is *definitely* "caveat emptor" in all arenas. Although after
seven years (and more), I would hope that there is a certain degree of
trust between you and your psychologist.
As I pointed out in my earlier post, $150 per hour would be on the high
end here in Minnesota but perhaps not in other places.
Tim
--
Don't you touch hard liquor- just a cup of cold coffee.
Gonna get up in the morning and go.
-Robert Hunter
jham...@gp.as.ua.edu
I want to address a few issues that have come up in this thread.
1 Many third party payers will not pay for anything other than patient
contacts. Because things like scoring, interpreting, and report writing,
make psychological assessment so much more time consuming than a therapy
hour, the per hr fee for assessments is usually bumped up to reflect
these extra time demands. When I assess someone I charge my typical
office hr charge for an intitial meeting which includes a diagnostic
interview with a mental status exam. If testing is necessary I calculate
the number of hours I will spend on the case, multply by my office hr
charge, and set a fee for the client. The fee is then broken down so
that it can be identified with my client contact time (e.g., $200 for
the session in which the MMPI is taken).
2 It is unclear from the original post, but if the assessment has
already been done and paid for, extra fees cannot be attached for
writing the report. I believe that it is unethical to withhold the
results of a psych eval for purposes of non-payment. That is why most
psychologists who do assessment (a) demand payment at the time of
service, and (b) plan on writing a full report regardless of what the
client says s/he needs. If nothing else, a full report will help to
support the psychologist should any liability issues arise.
3 Finally, the overhead involved in running a practice is of no
concern to the client. A psychologist should consider his/her expenses
and set charges accordingly. Clients should be free to shop for the best
price they can get, while keeping in mind that lower charges may mean
lower quality.
Cognitee
Dear Arwen,
I have my good points, too, huh?
I was just pointing out that an experimental psychologist, apparently
working with spactic, brain-damaged children in a low paying job, was not
one to address the matter of the fees of clinical or counseling
psychologists.
In article <5me2tj$s...@dfw-ixnews11.ix.netcom.com>,
ar...@ix.netcom.com(Arwen) wrote:
> I find the comments noted below to be incredibly offensive. These are
> the rants of an insensitive, arrogant and spiteful person. Brad calls
> himself a "client advocate". Seems to me the only thing he advocates
> is his own ideas. I've read this group everyday for two years and I am
> sick of reading his mean-spirited, self-promoting, repetitive writings.
> I'm sick of his lying, his paranoia, and his attack dog methods. I
> would hope that in the moderated group comments like these would be
> rejected. I look forward to the bote.
>
>
> >>I snipped most of the post because I was only responding to this part
> of it. If I'm not following proper netiquette, I'm sorry."
>
> In <good_brad-260...@ts003d02.mns-mn.concentric.net>
> good...@hotmail.com (Cognitee) writes:
> >
> >Dear Leslie,
> > >
Cognitee
Dear Leslie,
I have referred to your clients only a very few times. I may have done
it crudely, but this is mainly because I don't even clearly know who your
clients ARE yet. You have not been clear here, despite the repeated
attempts I have made to find out what your job is. As far as I can
determine, they are spastic, brain-damaged children. If this is not
accurate, it is your fault. This is, in effect, all you have said:
brain-damaged with motor problems, needing some sort of "therapy".
P.S. Maybe all should be mad at YOU for not describing things better.
Brain-damaged spastics, is my best guess BASED ON what you have said. I
used to think they maybe had cognitive problems and/or were retarded.
This was **simply due to a lack of information from you**. I never meant
to call spastics, retards. I would not do that.
I shall try to settle this matter of what your job is once and for all.
In article <338e6ace...@news.pipeline.com>, lpa...@pipeline.com wrote:
> Arwen,
>
> Thank you for speaking up against the insensitivity and discriminatory
> attitudes expressed about people with disabilities by someone who
> claims to be a counselling instructor. His attitude is a disgrace to
> decent people everywhere. And I agree with you completely: he is no
> advocate at all. Never has been and never will be.
>
> I have received e-mail from parents of children with disabilities who
> are so enraged at both his public denigration of people with
> disabilities and his attacks on me that there may be very unfortunate
> repercussions for him. I have asked them _not_ to respond publicly
> nor to mail-bomb him nor call his house, but it is all public
> information, and he may find himself getting more attention than he
> ever dreamed of. And if it happens, he will have no one to blame but
> himself. I do hope it doesn't come to that.
>
> I hope that everyone who is disgusted with his public ridicule of
> individuals with disabilities will vote YES for creating a moderated
> usenet group when the CFV is issued.
>
> Leslie
>
>
> >ar...@ix.netcom.com(Arwen) wrote:
>
> >I find the comments noted below to be incredibly offensive. These are
> >the rants of an insensitive, arrogant and spiteful person. Brad calls
> >himself a "client advocate". Seems to me the only thing he advocates
> >is his own ideas. I've read this group everyday for two years and I am
> >sick of reading his mean-spirited, self-promoting, repetitive writings.
> > I'm sick of his lying, his paranoia, and his attack dog methods. I
> >would hope that in the moderated group comments like these would be
> >rejected. I look forward to the bote.
> >
> >
> >>>I snipped most of the post because I was only responding to this part
> >of it. If I'm not following proper netiquette, I'm sorry."
> >
> >In <good_brad-260...@ts003d02.mns-mn.concentric.net>
> >good...@hotmail.com (Cognitee) writes:
> >>
> >>Dear Leslie,
> >> >
Cognitee
Dear Readers,
Does anyone know what Leslie Packer does in her job ?? Leslie seems
to be too embarassed (or something) to tell me outright, what here job
is. She has NEVER well-informed me, despite my repeated attempts to get
that reasonable information. Now it has become an issue because, while
she has left me largely in the dark, she is blaming me for
mischaracterizing her clients AND WANTS TO MAKE AN ISSUE OF IT !!! WHAT A
JOKE. Any problem here is Leslie's. I say now: Leslie, be proud enough
to describe your clients and your work !!!
I cannot believe the big-talking, power-monger is BLAMING **ME** for
not knowing EXACTLY how to characterize her clients. As far as I can now
tell: she is an experimental psychologist, working at a rather low-paying
job, dealing with brain-damaged children with "motor problems". She does
not work in a hospital, but does this on an outpatient basis. This is all
she has told me. Before this week she was not even clear what the effects
of the brain damage was. I cannot be held responsible for
mischaracterizing Leslie's patients (or is it "clients"). NO ONE COULD
REASONABLY HOLD ME RESPONSIBLE. I CAN'T READ THE MIND OF ONE LESLIE
PACKER. Clear, Leslie? This is my position. It will do.
P.S. Leslie, I run the beloved, well-know, client advocacy organization,
"Client Advocates." It is not "incorporated", and has no money. It is
"grass-roots". I am a client advocate (but I shall not try to prove it to
you.)
Hey: You're one BIG BABY !!!!!, Leslie
Jenny Sandy
i maybe a lucky minority, but my therapist has never charged me extra for
anything....in her words "it's all part of the deal"
she's also very flexable in terms of her session fees. my insurance paid
80% up to a certain amount, and then 50% up to a certain amout, and she
never asked me for the extra 20 and 50%.
just my two cents.
jenny
Cognitee
Dear Leslie,
Though I have asked you repeatedly what you do, you have never given me
a clear statement. I do know you are an experimental psychologist and not
a counseling or clinical psychologist. It seems you work with kids. I
seem to remember they have brain damage. I thought from past discussions
that they had cognitive problems, but it seems they are spastics. You
have shown an interest in neurology and court-processes, apparently to
augment your "status". But, you are still so defensive about your actual
work that you still have not told me (us?) what your job is. I think it
is a low paying job with brain-damaged, spastic children.
We all could benefit from knowing exactly what your job is so we can
see if you might be properly representing yourself in any discussion on
CLINICAL fees.
In article <339d6340....@news.pipeline.com>, lpa...@pipeline.com wrote:
> >good...@hotmail.com (Cognitee) wrote:
>
> >Dear Leslie,
> > Good science ethics (and good morals for that matter) have to do with
> >basing opinions on evidence that you can cite to others and that are
> >amenable to independent verification
>
> Really? Fascinating. You ought to try them sometime, then.
>
> > (sound familiar -- thought you
> >knew). There is the "codification" of the main ethic involved, anyway.
> >This is an ethic you broke repeatedly for months,
>
> Nah. I just wouldn't give you one cite that would have helped your
> argument because when I told you that there was more recent evidence
> that was relevant, you _assumed_ that I was referring to evidence
> _against_ your point and accused me of being a liar and then DEMANDED
> that I produce it. So to hell with you and you can go find it
> yourself (and no, it was not any of the studies you cited).
>
> I am indeed under ethical obligation to be able to support arguments
> or claims I make, but I am under NO obligation to do your homework for
> you or help you make your case if I'm not involved in the discussion.
> And I haven't been wrt that particular aspect.
>
> [...]
>
> >
> >P.S. Right here is YET ANOTHER false and libelous statement for which you
> >could produce ****NO evidence*****: "There have been over 100 screen
> >names in the last two years." If I ever saw you in court I would clean
> >your clock. If you just had any money....
> > <smiling broadly, with great self-satisfaction>
>
> Did I count incorrectly? Is it only 90+? Oh yeah, that would really
> be considered a libelous difference <snickering>. Get real, Brad.
> You have no idea of what would prevail in court and what wouldn't.
>
> Furthermore, if you have ever had a lawyer advise you on filing libel
> actions against others, you certainly wouldn't have made the
> incredibly stupid error you made earlier today in your posts about the
> FAQ.
>
> Don't know what the incredibly stupid move was on your part that would
> hurt your chances of successfully suing for libel, do you? Like I
> said, I doubt if you have or a lawyer or even spoke to a lawyer,
> because any lawyer would have told you not to do something that you
> did more than once.
>
> >
> >PLEASE EVERYONE NOTE: LESLIE IS AN EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGIST, AND **NOT**
> >A COUNSELING OR CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGIST -- she may have mislead you here.
>
> You're obsessed with my credentials again, aren't you? Brad, don't
> you 'get it?' They know my background. It's been explained (by me)
> on numerous occasions. It's been archived in threads from last summer
> too. Remember? When you tried to raise the same dumb comments about
> my patients and my credentials and everyone just laughed at you for
> your inability to comprehend and for your attempt to make something
> look deceptive when it never was?
>
> But in light of what you've posted in the last 48 hours, I think it's
> clear to everyone here that you're really self-destructing again, so
> it's time to put you back in the killfile.
>
> Before I do though:
>
> Take a bow, Brad. I want to give everyone here an opportunity to
> applaud your participation in this demonstration as to why a moderated
> ng is needed.
>
> You have demonstrated, yet again, the depths to which this ng can sink
> with your participation.
>
> Let's hear a round of applause for Brad, folks.
>
> And into the killfile you go......
Cognitee
Dear Leslie,
The going rate for behavior modification should often be simply how
much it costs a good friend to buy a manual -- it is a very easy process,
for many of its well-validated uses !! Your fees are not high for your
work, Leslie. Why are you so generous? <lauging>
No, I don't know all the policies and procedures of the state of New
York. I also don't know your favorite brand of toilet paper !!!
I find the following statement from you both a solicitation for abuses
and an inappropriate threat (this is not the first time you and some
others have suggested ABUSE or harassment): (quoting you): "And if anyone
knows the name of your employer, I suspect that you may see it included in
the next FAQ about you, Brad (and no, I am not the source of the FAQ, but
I would be very interested to know what community college actually employs
you and whether they have any idea of the ignorant statements you make
about different fields of psychology)." (end quote) Stooping VERY low,
huh Leslie ? Well, Leslie, you are well in your element in this
newsgroup: slime. The co-called "FAQ" is very wrong, but you like it
because it is against me. This shows your moral fiber: sick and
corrupt. You aren't even person enough to oppose the so-called "FAQ",
though you KNOW it contains falsehoods and is abusive in several ways !!!
Let me remind you of your attitude towards people putting personal info.
about YOU in the newsgroup (something I have never done to anyone).
In article <338a0853...@news.pipeline.com>, lpa...@pipeline.com wrote:
> >good...@hotmail.com (Cognitee) wrote:
>
> >Dear D. Barker,
> >PLEASE NOTE: You may have been mislead !!!:
> > Leslie likely doesn't "approach her clients" to offer services
>
> Right. They contact me. That's called 'normal,' Brad.
>
> > -- they
> >are likely institutionalized or hospitalized !!!!
>
> Nope, and if you understood diddly squat about professional practice,
> you'd know that unless I had hospital affiliation, I wouldn't be
> seeing them in such settings. My patient care work is strictly
> outpatient at this point.
>
> >I doubt she is
> >"approaching" any clients (except as she moves towards them physically
> >with her body across the room). Did you KNOW: Leslie is an Experimental
> >Psychologist (and ***NOT*** a clinical or counsleing psychologist).
>
> You poor, poor, thing. You have such a tough time understanding and
> accepting state laws on title protection.
>
> >She
> >works with brain damaged people and does behavior modification (a simple
> >process, likely low paid).
>
> Just for your edification, the going rate for behavior modification
> work around here is $125/hour.
>
> >She works with persons who lack cognitive
> >capacity (i.e. many are like retards).
>
> No. I've made it clear that I don't work with you.
>
> > Dan Rogers no doubt has to scrounge in a crappy old isolated Iowa town.
> >
> Maybe Dan will be kind enough to share some of the results of the
> inquiries he has made about you. And if anyone knows the name of your
> employer, I suspect that you may see it included in the next FAQ about
> you, Brad (and no, I am not the source of the FAQ, but I would be very
> interested to know what community college actually employs you and
> whether they have any idea of the ignorant statements you make about
> different fields of psychology).
Phil Jaquiery
Hear, hear.
And Hi Leslie, I thought I might pop in and lurk here for a while.
Re fees: I would never advertise that I make concessions but I would never
turn someone away if they really could not afford my fees.
lpa...@pipeline.com (Leslie E. Packer, PhD) said something like:
[snip]
>But this gives me an opportunity to raise another point, which you
>probably know but some of the public may not, so forgive me for using
>this response as a bit of a soapbox:
>
>Sometimes people are embarrassed or afraid to ask a doctor to treat
>them 'for free.' And that reluctance may stop them from getting help
>that they could get. Most health care professions have ethical codes
>that require their members to donate a certain amount of their time
>'pro bono.' The 'good' ones donate a lot more than what they are
>expected or required to.
>
>In my work with the Tourette Syndrome Association, I occasionally get
>calls from patients who have _no_ insurance coverage and simply cannot
>afford the $300 - $600 it will cost for a comprehensive psychiatric
>evaluation. Thankfully, there are dedicated psychiatrists who
>collaborate with us, and whom, if I call them and ask them to see the
>person because they really need their help, will unhesitatingly say
>'yes, of course.' I have also called psychologists and other kinds
>of professionals with similar requests for free consultations or
>treatment for patients who need it.
>
>If you or someone you know needs help and can't afford it, please
>don't just assume that you would be turned away. Ask. You can also
>offer to make payment on a reduced and lengthy schedule that you can
>live with.
>
>Most of us who are in 'helping' professions went into those
>professions to 'help.' And for many of us, the rewards of knowing
>that we have helped people who need our help mean much more than the
>dollar signs.
>
>OK, now I'll get off my soapbox. Sorry for the drift <g>.
>
>Leslie
Phil Jaquiery,DHP,MIAH
Hypno-Analysis Centre, Salisbury
visit http://www.openhart.demon.co.uk/hcs for a brochure.
Larry C. Lyons
In article <good_brad-260...@ts006d12.mns-mn.concentric.net>
Cognitee, good...@hotmail.com hysterically pontificates:
>This is fine for dealing with retards and similar cases,
Spoken like a true "Client Advocate." And to think that this person
teaches courselling... The mind boggles at his brand of unconditional
positive regard. His brand of openness and tolerance make me feel very
sorry for any vict^H^H^H^H um clients he sees.
Larry C. Lyons | email: mailto://sol...@mnsinc.com
| Home Page: http://www.mnsinc.com/solomon
My opinions alone, no one else will take responsibility for them!
========================================================
Life is Complex. It has both real and imaginary parts.
========================================================
Joseph P. Arco
Leslie E. Packer, PhD wrote:
>
> Arwen,
>
> Thank you for speaking up against the insensitivity and discriminatory
> attitudes expressed about people with disabilities by someone who
> claims to be a counselling instructor.
[deleted]
> I have received e-mail from parents of children with disabilities who
> are so enraged at both his public denigration of people with
> disabilities and his attacks on me that there may be very unfortunate
> repercussions for him.
[deleted]
> I hope that everyone who is disgusted with his public ridicule of
> individuals with disabilities will vote YES for creating a moderated
> usenet group when the CFV is issued.
>
> Leslie
>
> >ar...@ix.netcom.com(Arwen) wrote:
>
> >I find the comments noted below to be incredibly offensive. These are
> >the rants of an insensitive, arrogant and spiteful person. Brad calls
> >himself a "client advocate".
[deleted]
> > I'm sick of his lying, his paranoia, and his attack dog methods. I
> >would hope that in the moderated group comments like these would be
> >rejected. I look forward to the bote.
[deleted]
> >In <good_brad-260...@ts003d02.mns-mn.concentric.net>
> >good...@hotmail.com (Cognitee) writes:
> >>
> >>Dear Leslie,
> >> >
> >> Do you work with spastics, not retards??? What do you do other than
> >>behavior mod? Why the big interest in neurology, if you do no testing
> >>here?? Why are you such a creep and always interested in "court"
> >issues.
> >>How do you figure you are a big shot??
Dear Leslie:
I want to say that attacking special needs people as " spastics " and " retards " is
_personally_ *appalling* to me. His attacks on both you as well as on many others are
unfounded, unreal, and unmeaningful.
I suspect that he doesn't feel good about himself; his ego feels threatened ( believes
that he is unworthy.) This, *by no means*, justifies his negative behavior that readers
of the newsgroup are _undeservingly_ faced with.
On another personal note, I commend you, Leslie, for the work that you do as a health
care professional. I know that your particular field of expertise demands a _lot of
patience_ on your behalf!
I will be voting for moderation in sci.psychology.psychotherapy, so that we can carry on
with our work in supporting one another. There is a wealth of experience and knowlege
in this newsgroup, and I am grateful to have been a participant.
I want to thank all the good folks including the elected moderators, ombudsman, and to
all those who supported the creation of the RFD.
Again, Leslie, thank you for your continued support.
Kindest Regards,
...Joe
jham...@gp.as.ua.edu
Leslie E. Packer, PhD wrote:
>
>
> >
> >2 It is unclear from the original post, but if the assessment has
> >already been done and paid for, extra fees cannot be attached for
> >writing the report. I believe that it is unethical to withhold the
> >results of a psych eval for purposes of non-payment. That is why most
> >psychologists who do assessment (a) demand payment at the time of
> >service, and (b) plan on writing a full report regardless of what the
> >client says s/he needs. If nothing else, a full report will help to
> >support the psychologist should any liability issues arise.
>
> established patient who now needs a detailed report prepared for
> disability determination, etc. Hence (a) and (b) above don't really
> apply. It seems, from the description, simply a case where a
> therapist who is being asked to do a more detailed report after
> already completing a provided form wants to get reimbursed for the
> time it will take to prepare the report. While I think that the
> professional has a right to be reimbursed for their time and
> professional services, it would have been nice to do something like
> this 'gratis.'
>
>
> >Clients should be free to shop for the best
> >price they can get, while keeping in mind that lower charges may mean
> >lower quality.
>
> disservice to patients if we lead them to believe that they can only
> get what they pay for.
>
> But this gives me an opportunity to raise another point, which you
> probably know but some of the public may not, so forgive me for using
> this response as a bit of a soapbox:
>
> Sometimes people are embarrassed or afraid to ask a doctor to treat
> them 'for free.' And that reluctance may stop them from getting help
> that they could get. Most health care professions have ethical codes
> that require their members to donate a certain amount of their time
> 'pro bono.' The 'good' ones donate a lot more than what they are
> expected or required to.
>
Of course you are correct that most professions require members to
perform pro bono service, and of course many of us, like you, do more
than we are required. On the other hand, it is difficult to determine
who is "paying" for the pro bono work. Just as fees are set for a
particular client to cover time and effort on that client's behalf that
is not officially reimbursable, fees in general are set so that pro bono
cases don't cause any of us a particular hardship. To the extent that
this is true, the well insured and the wealthy subsidize our "pro bono"
work. In another way of looking at it, pro bono cases mean that we are
not making as much as we could. I guess in that sense it is a true
sacrifice. No big beef with anything you've said, I just think that we
shouldn't become too impressed with our own magnanimity. Mother Teresa
does pro bono work.
Cheers
Phil Jaquiery
Well, well, well,
Helooooo brad. What a nice introduction to spp you make. It is rather odd
that you are so abusive to Leslie since in my experience she is a very polite
and considerate correspondent.
I thought that it might be respectful for me to scan the NG before leaping in
with the best of them. I was rather disappointed to find that an
extraordinary proportion of the messages were from you, or other poor folk
defending themselves in reply to something you had said.
Goodness me. I have come across from the rough and tumble of the alt
hierarchy and expected to see some serious discussion of serious topics in spp
but to my dismay I find you - creating more havoc than I have seen (even) in
an alt group for quite some time.
As to your question.... Let me suggest a few reasons why, if I were Leslie, I
would refrain from answering:
1. You are a very rude little man (if man you are).
2. Your motive for asking the question seems to be in order to justify
some particularly stupid and judgmental comments you have made.
3. I would mistrust your use of any information I could volunteer to you.
In summary, I think - based on the (voluminous) postings you have made in the
last few days - that you, brad, are a very disturbed little cookie and that
your contribution to this NG is probably next to zilch (short, perhaps, of
providing a good case study).
Flame on Brad, roll on moderation.
good...@hotmail.com (Cognitee) said something like:
> Hey: You're one BIG BABY !!!!!, Leslie
Cognitee
Dear Phil,
If I am a "case study", they have not made any good use of me or dealt
with me constructively. I am attacked more by professionals than anyone
is attacked at all. Now, NOT addressing Leslie IN PARTICULAR (since I
don't want to lead to her total nervous breakdown):
Truth is: Many of the regulars here can't deal, and they can't cope.
And, they can't argue or muster evidence. They just make claims. They
just support myths. They care only for themselves (far more than they
care for clients or science). They attack me, NOT mainly based on (or
because of) my behavior, but my because of my views and the evidence and
arguments I present. They are intolerant and want "protection" (and
censorship). They love the status quo. They want to rule without being
able to truely defend *OR have to defend* their positions. The new
moderated group (if it does come to pass) will be nothing of the character
of a science group and will be a fraud.
In article <33953e18...@news.demon.co.uk>, ph...@openhart.demon.co.uk
wrote:
Cognitee
Dear Joe,
I would be sure to properly address Leslie's clients, if I knew who any
details about whothey were. I would be most respectful. I cannot be
faulted for crude guesses, possibly using somewhat crude language. I do
not see myself insulting anyone, because who they are has not been made
clear. I have been trying to prode Leslie for details. In frustration, I
have gotten a bit crude in my guessing. Who should I apologize for that
?? Leslie or clients I knew VERY little about ? OR: NEITHER ??
P.S. When will you defend ME against inappropriate characterization?
There is no even-handedness here. There are only heavily vested
"business" interests.
In article <338C47...@top.monad.net>, "Joseph P. Arco"
<ja...@top.monad.net> wrote:
> Leslie E. Packer, PhD wrote:
> >
> > >> Do you work with spastics, not retards??? What do you do other than
> > >>behavior mod? Why the big interest in neurology, if you do no testing
> > >>here?? Why are you such a creep and always interested in "court"
> > >issues.
> > >>How do you figure you are a big shot??
>
>
Cognitee
Dear Silke,
So they are not retarded (I didn't know until VERY recently) !!! I
believe they are quite possibly spastics. This is simply my best guess.
Are you uncomfortable with spastics??
In article <5mhbgg$q...@netnews.upenn.edu>, Z. wrote:
> Joseph P. Arco (ja...@top.monad.net) wrote:
> : Dear Leslie:
>
> : I want to say that attacking special needs people as " spastics " and
" retards " is
> : _personally_ *appalling* to me.
>
> Every once in a while, a me-too post seems acceptable, right? So, me, too.
>
> silke
Mark D. Morin
Cognitee wrote:
>
> Dear Silke,
> So they are not retarded (I didn't know until VERY recently) !!! I
> believe they are quite possibly spastics. This is simply my best guess.
> Are you uncomfortable with spastics??
I for one am. Just as I am uncomfortable with referring to someone as
"borderline," "schizophrenic," or "a Brad." The point is, there is no
such thing as "as spastic." There are individuals with spasticity but
there is much more to there person than this disorder. Your use of the
term "spasatic" is no less perjorative than "retard." The continued use
of it is offensive. It is for that very reason that I expect you to
continue using it.
MM
Decimal Point
In article <33a6717f...@news.pipeline.com> lpa...@pipeline.com (Leslie E. Packer, PhD) writes:
>From: lpa...@pipeline.com (Leslie E. Packer, PhD)
>Subject: Re: Usual & Customary Psychologist Fees (Leslie)
>Date: Wed, 28 May 1997 17:55:33 GMT
>>"Joseph P. Arco" <ja...@top.monad.net> wrote:
><snip of past attributions and some of Brad's vile comments>
>[...]
>>Dear Leslie:
>>
>>I want to say that attacking special needs people as " spastics " and " retards " is
>>_personally_ *appalling* to me. His attacks on both you as well as on many others are
>>unfounded, unreal, and unmeaningful.
SNIP
>I have gotten private e-mail from some people in news.groups that
>essentially says, "My God, I had no idea what you poor people were
>going through, and I will support the proposal." I wrote back to
>one person and told them that yes, they should vote for the proposal,
>but if they were religious, they could also pray for us <G>.
Well Leslie.. I have had some very good luck with St. Jude (patron of hopeless
cases) Though I usually don't bother him unless left without any other
recourse.. he seems appropriate for this one!! :+} I'll give it a try!!!
<GRIN> (but don't tell John P. OK or he'll be after the Bushmill if we get
him talking about religion again!! <G>)
Take Care
D.Barker
Cognitee
Dear Leslie,
I am not attacking anyone (except maybe YOU, now). For one thing,your
clients are not here. For another I thing: I have not even used any
inappropriate language. I simply have not had a clear idea who your
clients are. (I now know a very little, and still want you to tell me
more.) I cannot help it if I mis-guessed the exact nature of you
clients. It is you that seem to be too embarrassed to tell us. TELL US
NOW ABOUT YOUR CLIENTS. I still want to know. Are they children with
brain-damage and spastic motor problems? Can you tell us more??
I didn't know they were not retarded children !!! My only crime was
using the word "retards" INSTEAD of "retarded" when guessing this might
well be the nature of your clients. NOW I have to guess they have spastic
problems due to their brain-damage. I do not know anything about when or
how the brain damage occurred. You simply have not told me. Tell me all
about your job and/or your clients now, and I shall treat them with every
courtesy and address them appropriately.
I made no intentional misrepresentation of your clients and only in one
instance were my inquiries slighthy "insensitive". Trying to trump up
another character assassination, huh, Leslie ?? Well you are the libelous
one who has assassinated her OWN character. A check of the record will
show ONLY this !! Lelsie, has repeatedly and needlessly and aggressively
and inappropriately attempted to assassinate my character. HER TACTIC
HAS BEEN DIRECT ATTACKS ON ME, OFTEN DIRECTLY AND ONLY IN RESPONSE TO
VALID IDEAS I HAVEW EXPRESSED. Just one example of her gross impropriety:
more than once she has repeated the LIES of others, where there was no
evidence, as if it were fact !!!
P.S. Readers: Try Deja search and "Leslie Packer" and "Cognitee" and
witness her garbage. She is a "sensitive person" (when it comes to
herself) who has attacked me and shown cruelty and insensitivity. Now SHE
is cracking and asking for help. What a laugh . Too, bad Leslie!!
Stuff it. Go ahead and crack !!
In article <33a6717f...@news.pipeline.com>, lpa...@pipeline.com wrote:
> >"Joseph P. Arco" <ja...@top.monad.net> wrote:
>
> <snip of past attributions and some of Brad's vile comments>
>
> [...]
>
> >Dear Leslie:
> >
> >I want to say that attacking special needs people as " spastics " and "
retards " is
> >_personally_ *appalling* to me. His attacks on both you as well as on
many others are
> >unfounded, unreal, and unmeaningful.
>
> I am much more concerned about his attacks on people with
> disabilities. And if he is any kind of counseling instructor, can
> you imagine what he might lead students to believe about treating or
> counseling individuals with disabilities? <shuddering>
>
> >
> >I suspect that he doesn't feel good about himself; his ego feels
threatened ( believes
> >that he is unworthy.) This, *by no means*, justifies his negative
behavior that readers
> >of the newsgroup are _undeservingly_ faced with.
> >
> >On another personal note, I commend you, Leslie, for the work that you
do as a health
> >care professional. I know that your particular field of expertise
demands a _lot of
> >patience_ on your behalf!
>
> Thank you, Joe. Maybe some day we should start a thread on "how to
> develop patience for dealing with difficult patients." If we were to
> speculate on different kinds of experiences that might be incorporated
> in such a skills-acquisition course, what would you include? How
> about "getting stuck in rush-hour traffic every day on the L.I.E.?"
>
> "Parenting the adolescent female?" <chuckling> [Come to think of
> it, we could probably have some fun with a thread like that! <g>]
>
> >
> >I will be voting for moderation in sci.psychology.psychotherapy,
>
> Good! And if you participate in any other usenet groups, please
> spread the word there, too!
>
> I have gotten private e-mail from some people in news.groups that
> essentially says, "My God, I had no idea what you poor people were
> going through, and I will support the proposal." I wrote back to
> one person and told them that yes, they should vote for the proposal,
> but if they were religious, they could also pray for us <G>.
>
> >so that we can carry on
> >with our work in supporting one another. There is a wealth of
experience and knowlege
> >in this newsgroup, and I am grateful to have been a participant.
> >
> >I want to thank all the good folks including the elected moderators,
ombudsman, and to
> >all those who supported the creation of the RFD.
>
> I'm glad you mentioned that, Joe, because so much work was done in
> e-mail so as not to clutter the newsgroup that people may not realize
> the amount of time and effort that a number of people have put in on
> this RFD and process.
>
> While there have been many people who worked on it, I think that Paul
> Bernhardt and Ed Anderson have really led the way in terms of taking
> responsibility for pulling this stuff together, and we all owe them a
> HUGE thank you.
> >
> >Again, Leslie, thank you for your continued support.
> >
> >
> >
> >Kindest Regards,
> >
> >...Joe
>
> Regards to you, too, Joe.
>
> Leslie
Cognitee
Dear Leslie,
I have had to beg you to stop, Leslie !!! You waste so many peoples'
download times. YES folks, Leslie, as well as being a highly
inappropriate and abusive person (to me AND to some others here, anyway),
is also the reigning QUEEN of the empty post. More "I agrees" and "thank
yous" and "you are right"s (with no further explanation or comment) *and*
more "<laughing>" than any poster here. BY FAR !!! Her apparent conceit
makes her feel a mere nod from her is worth the world witnessing. I have
never been so vain !! The record would back me here. My posts, in
contrast (STARK contrast), are rarely empty of content.
P.S. Why don't you send all the English people the money you have
"robbed" from them for NOTHING (by SAYING NOTHING), Leslie !!!!!!
P.P.S. The bitter Leslie/Brad wars were back arould last August of last
year and lasted FOR THREE FULL MONTHS, ALL COURTESY OF THE ABUSIVE PACKER
!!
In article <33a77199...@news.pipeline.com>, lpa...@pipeline.com wrote:
> >wein...@mail1.sas.upenn.edu (Silke-Maria Weineck) wrote:
>
> >Joseph P. Arco (ja...@top.monad.net) wrote:
> >: Dear Leslie:
> >
> >: I want to say that attacking special needs people as " spastics " and
" retards " is
> >: _personally_ *appalling* to me.
> >
> >Every once in a while, a me-too post seems acceptable, right?
>
> Sometimes it seems _necessary_. So, yes.
>
> >So, me, too.
> >
> >silke
>
> As an elected moderator, would you reject such posts? (I'm not
> talking about the insults and such that he has levied at me, but just
> to the characterization of people as 'retards' or 'spastics.')
Cognitee
Dear Silke,
Do you really want to tell us that you are killfiling my discussion
during the RFD period ?? If you are, this shows impropriety as a
moderator-elect. Sorry, I though you were the one that was most "ok".
But ignoring discussion on YOUR platform during the discussin period seems
inappropriate. In theory, the charter could still be subject to change,
but you are not listening.
In article <5mhuno$b...@netnews.upenn.edu>, Z. wrote:
> Leslie E. Packer, PhD (lpa...@pipeline.com) wrote:
> : >wein...@mail1.sas.upenn.edu (Silke-Maria Weineck) wrote:
>
> : >Joseph P. Arco (ja...@top.monad.net) wrote:
> : >: Dear Leslie:
> : >
> : >: I want to say that attacking special needs people as " spastics "
and " retards " is
> : >: _personally_ *appalling* to me.
> : >
> : >Every once in a while, a me-too post seems acceptable, right?
>
> : Sometimes it seems _necessary_. So, yes.
>
> : >So, me, too.
> : >
> : >silke
>
> : As an elected moderator, would you reject such posts? (I'm not
> : talking about the insults and such that he has levied at me, but just
> : to the characterization of people as 'retards' or 'spastics.')
>
> It's with hesitation that I say "no" -- but no, I wouldn't. Moderation, to
> me, isn't about protecting anybody, esp not when excellent advocates like
> yourself are around. Flaming is a different matter, imo, even though, as
> you know, I'd moderate flames rather loosely as well. I rather think that
> nasty sentiments like those need to get out so that those spouting them
> expose themselves for what they are.
>
> And, needless to say, I wouldn't reject any post taking his ears off for
> it, either. Hell, I'd probably followed up with one of my own right away
> -- I hadn't seen his stuff since he's made himself killfile-material
> again, afaic.
>
> silke
>
> --
>
>
>
> -----------------------------------
> Silke-Maria Weineck, Ph.D.
> http://www.sas.upenn.edu/~weinecks/
Cognitee
Dear Mark Morin,
I can only refer to the spasticity, because this is about all I know
about LESLIE'S clients (except they are children with brain damage, as
well). She refuses to describe her clients. It is her that is seemingly
embarrassed about her clients. This seems to represent the only real
problem here. LESLIE seems to have a problem !!! "They have spasticity"
(apparently) ; is this somehow a bit better than saying "they are
spastics"? Well, I am not going to kiss your politically correct a**,
even if that sort of "enforcement" is all you are good for !!!! You can
kiss mine !!
srjordan
Brad, Brad, Brad:
You never go away and you never give up. How can you jump Leslie for the
same behavior you exhibit? What is it YOU do and just exactly where do
YOU do it? What type of clients do you see? Being a member of a few
advocacy groups myself, I have tried to research yours. Amazing that
throughout the states I can find no one that has ever heard of you. Quit
your crying and take your toys and go home, please! At least stick to
posting to spp, leave the rest of the groups having nothing to do with
therapy out of the ongoing war. I and others would greatly appreciate
it. I left spp to avoid you but you're everywhere.
sharon
Cognitee
Dear Sharon,
There are different kinds of client advocacy groups. Perhaps you are
not a researcher or theorist (like most of my members).
Dan Rogers
Cognitee wrote:
>
> Dear Readers,
> Does anyone know what Leslie Packer does in her job ?? (snip)
Here we go again. You demand information about Leslie Packer's
employment.
Give yours. For whom do you work? What is the title of your
paid position? Who is your employer? Supervisor?
You'll never give the information. Why? Because it would be only
blank spaces. If not, prove it. Prove everybody wrong, just once,
by offering facts.
You say you are a "counseling instructor." Many have offered evidence
that you are not. Prove them wrong. Don't just say that you don't
have to. You darned well do, because once again, you have demanded it
of someone else.
For once, prove everybody wrong. Just once.
Dan Rogers
Cognitee wrote:
>
> Dear Arwen,
> I was just pointing out that an experimental psychologist, apparently
> working with spactic, brain-damaged children in a low paying job, was not
> one to address the matter of the fees of clinical or counseling
> psychologists.
Then, by the same reasoning, you should have been totally silent on
the whole matter. You have never been a licensed or practising
psychologist.
But you avoided the issue Arwen raised: your tone was insulting and
insensitive to many, many people. You can't keep your bitterness
out of anything.
Gene Douglas
Brad, don't you know how you're making yourself look? First, you use
the term spastics and retards as if it is a put-down. L's clients may
not be here, but many other people with disabled children (or brothers,
sisters, etc.) may well be.
Then you act as if that were her client population, that would be a
put-down for the therapist. Are you actually saying that it would be
easier to treat that population?
Then you continue to demand the L tell you her client population.
There's no point. My own client population would be different, just
depending on in which year you asked me. At one time, they were
alcoholics and addicts. At another, they were soldiers who beat their
wives or children. At another, they were children who had behavior
problems. At present, I have a mix, due to three contracts, and some
private work I do. But the therapist is the same person.
Why can't you just disagree with what is said, on the basis of the data
itself, rather than on your opinion of the writer?
Gene
Cognitee
Dear Dan,
First of all WHY DO YOU NEED THE INFORMATION? The demand for much
information asked of me is not needed or relevant. In any case: Evidence
has been provided by independent sources, including Paul Bernhardt, that I
have been a psychology instructor at some places. I keep my current post
secret, but all that has ever been RELEVANT about what I am has been made
public and independently verified. Very little about what I am is
relevant to the stand-alone arguments I put forth. They are
research-based arguments, well-presented and clear, and can be judged
*well* without further information about my background. (Credentials
CLEARLY do not make the man, as we see in several cases in this ng).
Leslie was talking about typical fees for "therapy". I thought it
relevant to point out that she is not a therapist. That's all. Then she
starting carrying on about how I was misrepresenting her clients in some
regard. I simply need more info. now if she wants to make sure I do not
inadvertently mischaracterize the type of client she does deal with in
some regard (IF SHE REALLY DOES CARE ABOUT THIS). That's all.
As relevant, Dan, you get what you need (although I don't mean that
literally, since you need a kick in the ***).
In article <338CF0...@ia.frontiercomm.net>, Dan Rogers
Cognitee
Dear Leslie,
If Silke could alone comprize a majority of moderators, I might be able
to trust them more. But, I don't trust the other **4** or the ombudsman.
I also would like to be voting for policies and procedures of moderation
that are , in good part, based on clearly defined demonstrated rules and
would rather not be voting on just trusting people. Here we are being
asked "just to trust the people" (plain and simple). Many things are not
clear and many things are not spelled out.
In article <3391dddb...@news.pipeline.com>, lpa...@pipeline.com wrote:
> >wein...@mail1.sas.upenn.edu (Silke-Maria Weineck) wrote:
>
> >Leslie E. Packer, PhD (lpa...@pipeline.com) wrote:
>
> <snip of past attributions>
> >
> [...]
> >
> >: As an elected moderator, would you reject such posts? (I'm not
> >: talking about the insults and such that he has levied at me, but just
> >: to the characterization of people as 'retards' or 'spastics.')
> >
> >It's with hesitation that I say "no" -- but no, I wouldn't. Moderation, to
> >me, isn't about protecting anybody, esp not when excellent advocates like
> >yourself are around. Flaming is a different matter, imo, even though, as
> >you know, I'd moderate flames rather loosely as well. I rather think that
> >nasty sentiments like those need to get out so that those spouting them
> >expose themselves for what they are.
> >
> >And, needless to say, I wouldn't reject any post taking his ears off for
> >it, either. Hell, I'd probably followed up with one of my own right away
> >-- I hadn't seen his stuff since he's made himself killfile-material
> >again, afaic.
> >
> >silke
>
> Well, I'm not happy to hear your answer, but I respect your views on
> this and do appreciate some of the points you make above.
>
> And I think that the openess you've demonstrated should actually
> reassure people that this whole RFD isn't something that was just
> concocted to make sppm "Brad-free."
>
> Regards,
>
> Leslie
Cognitee
Dear Dan,
I have never asked Lelsie exactly where she works, like you seem to ask
of me now (nor have I published personal information about her, like
others here have about me). I can't see where this would likely EVER be
relevant. AND, I have asked about things only as things became
relevant. If Leslie is content with my understanding that she works with
brain-damaged kids with motor problems (spasticity) and that she has a
degree in experimental psychology, that is fine with me. But she should
not criticize any crudeness in my understanding of her "clients". I
"need" to know no more if I am to describe her clients well to other who
may be interested (and this is how it all came up).
P.S. I am glad that an ex-moderator, one who was right in there with
Grohol et al last time, is continuing to show his untrustworty abusive
nature. This is important since we ARE simply being asked to "trust" the
"moderators" (aka censors).
Peter
Without Prejudice.
In article <good_brad-280...@dial006.future.net>, Cognitee
<good...@hotmail.com> writes
>Dear Joe,
> I would be sure to properly address Leslie's clients, if I knew who any
>details about whothey were. I would be most respectful. I cannot be
>faulted for crude guesses, possibly using somewhat crude language. I do
>not see myself insulting anyone, because who they are has not been made
>clear. I have been trying to prode Leslie for details. In frustration, I
>have gotten a bit crude in my guessing. Who should I apologize for that
>?? Leslie or clients I knew VERY little about ? OR: NEITHER ??
Mister Jesness,
Continuing with your requests, here is an item of proof. It indicates
quite clearly that you were told in no uncertain terms of Dr. Packer's
work.
Please understand that I am posting this at my own initiative, and will
desist as soon as you cease your abuse of me in news:
In article <an571479-240...@198.22.19.209>, Cognitee
<an57...@anon.penet.fi> wrote last year
>Dear Leslie,
> Nice effort. Keep up the good work !
>In article <4vlcui$1...@news1.t1.usa.pipeline.com>,
>lpa...@nyc.pipeline.com(Leslie E. Packer, PhD) wrote:
>
>> The following is a copy of an email I sent to the postmaster for
>> ties.k12.mn.us:
>>
>> ---------
>>
>>
>> Postmaster:
>>
>> A number of vile posts having been appearing on some internet usenet groups
>> showing "viking.ties.k12.mn.us" in their header. I am enclosing one of
>> them below so you can get a feeling for what is going out from your
>> machine:
>>
>> ---------- Begin Forwarded Message ----------
>>
>> Path:
>>
>psinntp!psinntp!howland.erols.net!cam-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.mathworks.com
>
>>
>> !nntp.primenet.com!mr.net!news.mr.net!viking.ties.k12.mn.us!NewsWatcher!user
>> From: n...@way.jose (L.)
>> Newsgroups: sci.psychology.psychotherapy
>> Subject: Re: in a slight defense of Brad...
>> Date: 19 Aug 1996 16:43:57 GMT
>> Organization: none
>> Lines: 35
>> Message-ID: <no-190896...@198.22.19.211>
>> References: <4v546t$p...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
>> <4v5rg5$6...@news1.t1.usa.pipeline.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?
>> >
>>
>> ----------------------- End of Forwarded Message -------------
>>
>> Permit me to make a few comments that may be of some assistance to you:
>>
>> 1. There is an individual by the name of Brad Jesness who has repeatedly
>> posted abusive and harassing messages in some of the psychology oriented
>> newsgroups. He claims to be an instructor of psychology at some college,
>> presumably in the Minneapolis areas.
>>
>> 2. He has posted under a variety of aliases and screen names in the last
>> year or so. Sometimes he does this and uses anonymous posting services
>> because his account has been suspended for abuse by AOL or another
>> provider. At other times, he posts under anonymous or screen names so that
>> he can pretend to have
>> support for his positions and abusive comments.
NB:
>> 3. Mr. Jesness recently referred to my patients (all neurologically
>> impaired adults who suffered CNS damage from stroke, spinal cord injury
>> etc., as "retards." I, and others, found this most offensive. I note that
>> the anonymous poster in the post above also uses the same term. I find it
>> difficult to understand how a university computer could be used to generate
>> posts with such grossly discriminatory remarks.
>> 4. Mr. Jesness has bragged that he and his friends have a number of
>> accounts that they can use to log on and post messages. This, in answer to
>> the attempts of some of us to get his account blocked for repeated net
>> abuse.
>>
>> 5. Mr. Jesness, in addition to posting offensive comments on the
>> physically disabled as a way of insulting me, has also posted sexually
>> harassing material and made intimidating statements and only slightly
>> veiled threats. I can forward you copies of these, should you need them.
>> These were posted under other accounts and not on your machine, as far as I
>> can recall at the present
>> time.
>>
>> 6. I have been told that Mr. Jesness's wife is an employee of the public
>> schools. I have no indication that Mrs. Jesness has written any of the
>> offensive posts, and am accusing no one specifically. It may be just a
>> coincidence.
>>
>> 7. I am a licensed psychologist in NYS. On numerous occasions, Mr.
>> Jesness and his cyber alters have insulted me professionally and cast
>> aspersions on the entire field of professional psychology. Mr. Jesness
>> claims to be a developmental psychologist and states that he is completing
>> a counseling degree. The American Psychological Association confirms that
>> he has a masters
>> in Educational Psychology. I have no idea if he is, indeed, in a graduate
>> counseling program, nor do I have any idea where he may be employed as an
>> instructor in the Minneapolis area.
>>
>> I am asking that you investigate to determine exactly who is using your
>> machine for such disreputable purposes, that you put a halt to it, and that
>> you notify me of the results of your investigation and action.
>>
>> Sincerely,
>>
>> Leslie E. Packer, PhD
>>
>> ------------------------ end of message --------------------
>>
Without Prejudice.
--
Peter
ja...@top.monad.net
On Wed, 28 May 1997 10:26:17 -0500, good...@hotmail.com (Cognitee) wrote:
> Dear Joe,
[deleted]
> P.S. When will you defend ME against inappropriate characterization?
You may want to refer to my post:
Subject: Re: Note to Killfile users: new e-mail address
Date: Sun, 25 May 1997 10:24:24 -0700
From: "Joseph P. Arco" <ja...@top.monad.net>
Organization: ARCO CONSULTING
Newsgroups: sci.psychology.psychotherapy
References: 1 , 2
--
Posted using Reference.COM http://www.reference.com
Browse, Search and Post Usenet and Mailing list Archive and Catalog.
InReference, Inc. accepts no responsibility for the content of this posting.
Cognitee
Dear Peter,
Gee thanks. Now I am reminded of how the CNS damage often occurs to
Leslie's clients; I still don't know when it occurs. She always says next
to nothing about her job. AS FAR AS I KNOW NOW: Ms. Packer's clients are
spastics. I have been recently corrected and told they are not USUALLY
mentally impaired OR retarded -- though some good number of them could
be. Ms. Packer has never been clear on her job or the fact that she is an
*experimental* and NOT a clinical or counseling psychologist. She is
apparently too embarassed about her work to have ever shared it.
As you show below, Peter: Leslie makes grossly misleading statements
(at the very least, GROSS exagerations) about me. She has a history of
claiming I have done things I have never done and for which she has no
reasonable evidence (likely none at all). Yes, siree, Leslie is the
abuser. You backed me up a bit there, Peter, you pumpkin EATER. I will
have to share this malice for court !!!
In article <FVvxJKAj...@brentano.demon.co.uk>, Peter
Cognitee
P.S. Dear BIASED, goofy, unstable BUGGER PETER
You say in your post, quoted below: "It indicates quite clearly that
you were told in no uncertain terms of Dr. Packer's work." No uncertain
terms, huh? WHAT A JOKE !! Your statement is so ridiculous that I will
not even dignify it with a further response.
I will note that it looks like you are quoting NOT a newsgroup post but
e-mail.
In article <FVvxJKAj...@brentano.demon.co.uk>, Peter
<Pe...@brentano.demon.co.uk> wrote:
Cognitee
Dear Dan,
The information you ask for is not relevant or needed for any purpose.
I have never asked any such PERSONAL information of anyone.
John Clark
In article <good_brad-280...@dial012.future.net>,
Cognitee <good...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Dear Sharon,
> There are different kinds of client advocacy groups. Perhaps you are
>not a researcher or theorist (like most of my members).
Should I become an instant freudian, just add water... and delve into
exactly what you mean by 'my members'... as opposed to 'the members'.
Leslie E. Packer, PhD
To All:
I apologize in advance for the length of this post. I regret that
Brad's harassment has once again spilled over into numerous threads
and usenet groups.
>Gene Douglas <Gene...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>Brad, don't you know how you're making yourself look? First, you use
>the term spastics and retards as if it is a put-down. L's clients may
>not be here, but many other people with disabled children (or brothers,
>sisters, etc.) may well be.
Exactly.
Since I put Brad back in the killfile, I haven't seen his messages,
except as they are being quoted by others who respond to him. I see
that Peter and one anonymous poster have reposted stuff from the
archives that shows we've been down this road before with Brad (and
thank you to both Peter and the anonymous poster for trying to set the
record straight).
>
>Then you act as if that were her client population, that would be a
>put-down for the therapist. Are you actually saying that it would be
>easier to treat that population?
>
He's probably trying to say that because I don't do talk-therapy, I
have no right to talk about fees, etc. Or that because (he thinks) I'm
an experimental psychologist in a low-paying job, I shouldn't talk
about fees and rates. My hourly rate for treatment is as high or
higher than most talk-therapists, and insurance coverage for my
service tends to be a _lot_ better than therapists who have to bill
under mental health provisions of a policy. If I'm not making a lot
of money, it's because I have chosen to devote myself to the Tourette
Syndrome-related work, which is mostly volunteer work.
Brad, of course, has no basis to discuss fees or policies at all if
being a 'therapist' is his criterion for participating in the
discussion, since he is not any kind of therapist and has no
experience in maintaining a practice, billing procedures and issues,
etc.
And what sense does it make to ask him his opinion about what kind(s)
of patients might be easier to treat, since he doesn't treat any
patients? That's like asking him about advocacy. Why bother, when
he's not an advocate?
>Then you continue to demand the L tell you her client population.
>There's no point. My own client population would be different, just
>depending on in which year you asked me.
In my case, there's not that kind of variability, Gene. My adult
patient population has been described in many posts (see the reposts
in Peter's and Anonymous's posts; these are the patients with whom I
use EMG-feedback-assisted interventions and programs, etc.).
Then there's my Tourette-related work, which is more varied. It is
generally split between my pro bono advocacy work (in that capacity, I
am representing the local Tourette Syndrome Association chapter, where
I serve on the Board of Directors) and paid consulting work where I
occasionally allow school districts to hire me as their consultant for
purposes of either training their staff or helping them develop a
specialized program for an individual child (such programs
incorporate behavior management issues and interventions).
In my advocacy work, I do educational advocacy and assistance, which
may be helping a school develop an IEP for a child or it might mean
fighting the district for the child's legal entitlements -- or it
might mean providing workshops for school personnel. School districts
in our chapter's area are provided with the workshops for a small
honorarium to the chapter. School districts in other parts of the
state have hired me individually and professionally to come train
their staff or consult with them. As an advocate for TSA, I
occasionally get called in on criminal cases, and I've also dealt with
cases where Child Protective Services was involved. Then there's also
patient advocacy, of course.
Apart from my local activities, I have a broader advocacy involvement.
I coordinate a statewide task force of TSA affiliates on educating
children with TS, and have testifed to the state and federal
governments on educating children with TS and how their legal rights
to a free appropriate public education have often been violated. I
have authored materials on Tourette for the NYS Education Department
at their request, have provided training for the State Education
Dept's regional special education trainers at their request, and
receive calls on education and education advocacy issues from all over
the country and a few other countries from parents, health care
professionals, and attorneys. At the request of the national
Tourette Syndrome Association, I have written an article for
physicians on the educational and social issues and resources relating
to TS and how to advocate for their patients; that article is in the
May, 1997 volume of Neurologic Clinics: Tourette Syndrome (J.
Jankovic, Editor), W. B. Saunders Publishers (and I don't get
royalties, so that's just for informational purposes). At the
request of the national Tourette Syndrome Association, I have also
agreed to serve on their newly forming national Advocacy Committee,
where I will be representing the northeast part of the country (and I
hope to hell they spell out exactly which states because geography was
never my strong suit <g>). And as I mentioned in a post in another
thread, I have also spent time communicating with one of the ethics
subcommittees of the APA about issues relating to school psychologists
and kids with TS (issues that include reporting to CPS because of
ignorance, etc.).
Occasionally, I land up testifying in cases as an expert witness on
TS; these cases are usually education-related due process hearings,
etc., and I am paid for that as any psychologist would be for
providing expert testimony. Recently I have begun considering
expanding my clinical practice to take on TS patients for treatment of
tics or compulsions (hence my interest in the NLP threadm for
example). But I will have to get a lot more training of certain kinds
before I would attempt certain approaches. I am already qualified and
experienced enough in behavioral techniques to explore certain
strategies for reducing tics, and I was a research fellow at Ellis'
Institute for Rational Emotive Therapy and have some background in
RET, but I don't feel qualified (yet) to take on OCD cases yet.
Finally, I use the Internet as part of my advocacy efforts, and have
reached a lot of parents and professionals to educate them about TS.
I receive many e-mails from parents in alt.support.tourette or from
the TS-related mail list (POV-twitch), and do a lot of back-channel
communicating on individual cases or problems. As a result of the
internet postings, we've gotten some previously undiagnosed patients
correctly diagnosed, linked people up with resources in their area,
and helped professionals who had never recognized nor understood TS.
Again, I apologize for the length of the above, and realize that Brad
will probably now spew off more venom about how I'm conceited or
bragging. Those who know me know that I usually _don't_ list all my
titles and roles because I am comfortable with my credentials and
qualifications and because the people who really need to know my
credentials or expertise already do. The national TSA clearly does
not share Brad's views about me, btw, since they asked me to speak on
four different panels at their national conference last year.
IAE, my work has been discussed in spp at different times and in
different threads within the context of those discussions. And Brad
knows that. It has been explained to him *numerous* times that my
doctorate was in experimental psychology, but I now do clinical work
(patient treatment) and am licensed as a "psychologist" -- and he has
been repeatedly told that NYS does not have a title "experimental
psychologist" -- but he apparently insists that I should break the
laws of my state and present myself as something that I am not in my
work. He has also been told that I don't do psychotherapy in the
sense of talk-therapy or talking about people's emotional problems,
etc. Am I a 'therapist?' Of course I am, when I am treating patients
or developing programs to deal with behavior management concerns. Am
I a 'psychologist?' Absolutely, and that's what my license says. Am
I a 'clinical psychologist?' No. Are the ethical issues and
professional practice issues the same for me as they are for clinical
psychologists? In all respects, yes.
Hence, Brad's only purpose in claiming that these things have not been
explained clearly to him is to continue to harass me. But when he
tries to harass or flame me by insulting people with disabilities, he
should be shunned.
>
>Why can't you just disagree with what is said, on the basis of the data
>itself, rather than on your opinion of the writer?
Gene, you will find part of the answer to that question if you go read
the archives. Brad has a lot of problems, and he seems to have
especial problems with women. He gets vile with the men, but
really seems to go over the edge with women. If you want to see how
offensive and inappropriate he gets, go to D/N and do a "power
search" -- then click the 'create a filter' option, set the groups for
sci.psychology.psychotherapy, sci.psychology.misc, and set the dates
for the period 8/1/96 to 8/31/96. Once you've set the filter, search
for the keyword "dickless," and you should be able to find a thread
where Brad announced to the world that I had left him "dickless."
Really. You may also find his post where he partially revealed my
address and phone number. At that point, I complained to his
provider, AOL, and they cancelled his account (again). I have also
received two phone calls from one former spp poster who was so upset
by his harassing e-mails to her that she was literally shaking on the
phone.
But one of the saddest things, IMO, is that as often as I've discussed
TS or OCD in usenet posts, and as much as I've done on the Internet to
educate people about TS and the needs of kids with TS or TS+, Brad
will still probably turn around and ask me if that means that the kids
are spastic or retarded.
He is ignorance personified.
And if he continues with his harassment, I think he deserves whatever
happens to him -- whether it's people mail-bombing him, complaining to
his ISP, complaining to the APA about his ethical conduct (or lack
thereof), or investigating him to contact any employer he might have.
It seems like Peter has had enough and may be ready to contact any
employer with evidence that Brad misrepresents his position. I
wouldn't blame him if he did that as Brad has harassed Peter for two
years now. As an example of his _intentional_ harassment, when
writing to Peter, Brad generally manages to incorporate the word
"bugger," which has a different, and extremely sexually offensive
meaning in England, as Brad knows, because Peter has been quite clear
about how offensive it is. Paul Bernhardt also publicly complained
about Brad's sexually offensive e-mail to him.
>
>Gene
Leslie
Cognitee
Dear Leslie,
Peter's so-called "archives" are not to be trusted. Moreover, they do
not constitute good evidence of anything. **MOREOVER**: THERE IS NO GOOD
or REASONABLE EVIDENCE OF ANY SIGNIFICANT WRONG-DOING OF ANY KIND ON MY
PART *WHATSOEVER*. YOU, IN CONSTRAST, HAVE BEEN LAW SUIT BAIT (in my
view). And now you THANK the libelous "Anonymous" poster !! What sort of
maral depravity is this !! All know there are both false and unprovable
accusations in the so-called "FAQ". But, Leslie, THE ABUSER, strikes
again!! She cannot help her outbursts (if only they were as approporiate
as many of her Tourette clients' behaviors !!) You must really have sh**
for brains. You are morally corrupt and lack decency, Leslie.
You are an experiemntal psychologist IN PARTICULAR, because this is
what you have your DEGREE in. I cannot help that the goofy state of New
York issues only one license and it says "psychologist", you are STILL
(specifically speaking) an EXPERIMENTAL psychologist **AND ***NOT*** a
Clinical OR a Counseling psychologist. You should make this clear and
make the sort of clients you work with clear when RELEVANT and stop
misleading people.
Hey, now I find out your some of your "patients" may bark like dogs
!!! Too bad your undesirable behaviors are not that "tame" or appropriate
!!!
P.S. One of Gene's questions is really good. I wonder how I would be
countered (if I was still around) without the PERSONAL ABUSES that have
been the stock and trade of many of my opponents. This has clearly been
Leslie's mode, oftentimes. She has repeated bad things against me that
were totally false and had NO basis in evidence. WHAT A GIGANTIC,
MIS-BEHAVED BIG BABY !!! Other things were greatly distorted and
exaggerated and misrepresented to try to do character assassination. This
has been the main tactic of several in the newsgroup (and the ONLY way
***SEVERAL** have ever opposed my views -- i.e. with inappropriate hostile
aggression).
Cognitee
P.S. Leslie,
I thought your main work was with children. Now we hear mainly of adult
work OR pro bono, consulting, and advocacy work. Why can't you describe
your main work clearly? Is it with spastic children? Or is your main
work with Tourette children just as it is with some adults ?? Or is it
with brain-damaged kids more generally, as you previously indicated? Do
you work only with brain-damaged children involving Tourettes ? I
personally think you are just one major GRUNT !!
I guess I do see you as bragging, becuase you do not present a clear
representative picture of your actual work, but just talk about more the
high status stuff. Can't answer the simple question, can you. NEVER HAVE
!!!! One major SICKO, you are.
In article <3397cc01...@news.pipeline.com>, lpa...@pipeline.com wrote:
Michelle
Cognitee wrote in article ... (referring to Dr. L. Packer)
> WHAT A GIGANTIC, MIS-BEHAVED BIG BABY !!!
I'm sorry, Brad, but I have to disagree with you on this one. I don't know
either you or Dr. Packer personally, but I have been following this
thread.. and it seems to me that YOU are the one who is acting like a
"mis-behaved big baby". She always tries to explain herself to you in a
calm, reasonable way, and frankly I don't know how she manages to keep her
composure with you speaking to her like you do. Your accusations against
Dr. Packer are getting old and *very* tired, Brad. Let's move on to
something else already!
Michelle
~~~~~~
Jenny Sandy
i have something else to add to this little discussion. i saw my
therapist today and she told me that next week she'll have a write up to
send to the county so my medical assistance will pay for weekly
sessions. she told me that we would go over it to make sure she has all
her facts straight and stuff like that.
i asked her if their would be an addition charge for the time she spent
writing it up. she looked at me really funny.....and told me that it's a
part of her job and she gets paid for it from my sessions. she includes
all those little extras in session fees.
just my two cents.....again.
jenny
Cognitee
Dear Michele,
The whole matter of Leslie's work came up where I thought it was
relevant. STILL NOW, Leslie talks a good talk, BUT DOES NOT CLEARLY
DESCRIBE HER *PAID WORK*. Leslie cannot even describe the representatiove
activites she does on her job or the nature of the representative client.
She has never clearly described this. She always starts talking about her
volunteer work and court work and "consulting". It is impossible to get a
clear statement of the nature of her actual, regular, paid work. For a
long time I only knew she worked with brain-damaged persons, with no
knowledge of when or how the damage occurred. I still don't know much
here. I also thought I had it nailed down that she worked primarily with
kids, and now this is unclear. She has recently stated that her clients
have more "motor" problems than "cognitive" problems, something that has
only become clear lately and STILL she has said very little about this.
Today she speaks about Tourette's clients, but IT IS NOT CLEAR IF THESE
ARE THE CLIENTS IN HER PAID WORK OR VOLUNTEER WORK. Is the effect of the
brian damage on her regular clients Tourettes ??
All I can say is that it is impossible to hold me responsible for
properly addressing Ms. Packer's experience or her clients. She is
apparently very embarassed about her PAID work, and she will not clearly
share what this is. I shall still try to indicate to people what Leslie
does, if it becomes relevant again, and if she seems to be misleading
people.
In article <5mkmcd$7uf$1...@daily-planet.nodak.edu>, "Michelle"
<mist...@badlands.nodak.edu> wrote:
> Cognitee wrote in article ... (referring to Dr. L. Packer)
>
> > WHAT A GIGANTIC, MIS-BEHAVED BIG BABY !!!
>
Leslie E. Packer, PhD
>Jenny Sandy <sa...@freenet.msp.mn.us> wrote:
Hi, Jenny.
What your therapist does seems to work very well for her and for you,
and that's terrific. I think that many therapists do incorporate a
certain amount of 'paper work' into their hourly fees. Those who
don't may prefer to keep hourly rates low so that patients who don't
need paperwork aren't paying as much for their services. There are
pro's and con's to both.
For example, I have one insurance carrier I deal with on behalf of a
particular patient. I worked out a fee arrangement with them that I
told them would include quarterly detailed reports. If they needed
more than that, the additional reports would be billable. That works
with them. In other cases, I have billed separately for paperwork
because there's so much of it and I have no way of anticipating what
I'm going to be asked to provide, etc. (those are usually the cases
where there's litigation involved and you have attorneys providing
legal demands for 300 pages of charts, notes, etc. etc. <groan>).
But reading your post, I get the sense that your therapist answering
you that way made you feel even better about her -- that she wasn't
just looking to nickel and dime you to death. And that feeling that
your therapist isn't just out for every possible dollar is important,
isn't it?
Regards,
Leslie
Phil Jaquiery
good...@hotmail.com (Cognitee) said something like:
>Dear Phil,
> If I am a "case study", they have not made any good use of me or dealt
>with me constructively. I am attacked more by professionals than anyone
>is attacked at all.
Hmmmm - attacked....
>Now, NOT addressing Leslie IN PARTICULAR (since I
>don't want to lead to her total nervous breakdown):
Hmmmm - can control other people's destiny....
> Truth is: Many of the regulars here can't deal, and they can't cope.
Hmmmm - looks condescendingly at others...
>And, they can't argue or muster evidence. They just make claims. They
>just support myths. They care only for themselves (far more than they
>care for clients or science). They attack me, NOT mainly based on (or
>because of) my behavior, but my because of my views and the evidence and
>arguments I present. They are intolerant and want "protection" (and
>censorship). They love the status quo. They want to rule without being
>able to truely defend *OR have to defend* their positions. The new
>moderated group (if it does come to pass) will be nothing of the character
>of a science group and will be a fraud.
Brad, you seem to be somewhat delusional. If we were to ask The Man On The
Clapham Omnibus I think you would find that he might consider your postings to
represent the character and mentality of a bad tempered child. Netters often
refer to those who post in the manner that you do as "trolls".
Brad, you may not be a troll. You may not be suffering paranoid delusions.
You may actually be suffering attacks from people whose intelligence is far
less than your own. But... surely you can forgive others for diagnosing you
as an anally retentive, paranoid delusional troll when that is the persona you
portray. And, surely you are magnanimous enough to understand their wish to
avoid such a character.
regards,
Phil Jaquiery,DHP,MIAH
Hypno-Analysis Centre, Salisbury
visit http://www.openhart.demon.co.uk/hcs for a brochure.
Cognitee
Dear Phil,
I can understand your opinion and point of view. I suggest, if you
really want to know, that you check just a good piece of the archive
record of this group (via Deja or Alta Vista). I think you would be very
enlightened. Just do a search using : "sci.psychology.psychotherapy" and
"Cognitee" and any of several other characters ("Bernhardt", "Grohol",
"Peter Brentano" "Leslie Packer" or "Dan Rogers"). Then, get back to me.
In article <338e9e28...@news.demon.co.uk>, ph...@openhart.demon.co.uk
wrote:
Christy
(in
> accusations in the so-called "FAQ". But, Leslie, THE ABUSER, strikes
> again!! She cannot help her outbursts (if only they were as
approporiate
> as many of her Tourette clients' behaviors !!)
When you learn and gain some knowledge on Tourettes then make a post like
that, because it once again shows your ignorance.......And proves that you
have no credibility
You must really have sh**
> for brains. You are morally corrupt and lack decency,
At least i know you can adequately describe your self image...now go work
on it
>
Peter
Without Prejudice.
Yes, here I think.
<To onlookers from spp and n.g's: I do apologise for the length of this
post. It's almost the last one that I shall be sending to spp related
threads for a considerable time. I've had enough.>
Mister Jesness, I'll begin by reposting a snippet of your aggression
elsewhere. It triggered this final response to you:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In article <good_brad-290...@dial006.future.net>, Cognitee
<good...@hotmail.com> writes
>P.S. Dear BIASED, goofy, unstable BUGGER PETER
> You say in your post, quoted below: "It indicates quite clearly that
>you were told in no uncertain terms of Dr. Packer's work." No uncertain
>terms, huh? WHAT A JOKE !! Your statement is so ridiculous that I will
>not even dignify it with a further response.
Well, I could hammer the point home with other examples, but I'll not
waste time since the post clearly indicates Dr. Packer's professional
standing. Moreover, your behaviour and inability to accept the truth also
indicates your extreme prejudice against Dr. Packer. You thus deface
yourself, and continue to chip away at any last vestige of sympathy that
onlookers might once have had for you.
> I will note that it looks like you are quoting NOT a newsgroup post but
>e-mail.
Wrong. See below, if you can contain yourself and scroll through this
collection of specimens of your behaviour.
<snip>
First, be quite clear on this, Mister Jesness, I told you the following:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In article <VGvFNOAi...@brentano.demon.co.uk>, Peter
<Pe...@brentano.demon.co.uk> writes
>2) NOW READ THIS VERY CAREFULLY MR. JESNESS: One of the worst examples
>of your bad behaviour was your claim in private to me to academic
>status that you certainly do not possess.
>
>IF you do not terminate your abusive treatment of me in news I will
>follow up with a complete copy (c/w header data) of your post. I will
>also e-mail the APA, APS and your employers, who will I am sure be
>interested to hear of your grandiose claims.
>
<snip>
>
>Similarly I will remind posters of your public promise to circumvent
>kill-files, by means of multiple aliases, citing as your reason the
>paranoid idea that someone was tinkering with your service/posts.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
However, you just had to walk over the line. I drew back from this last
year, but this time I warned you that I would not if you did not desist
from your abuse of me.
However, let's first look at your false argument below:
>> In article <an571479-240...@198.22.19.209>, Cognitee
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> <an57...@anon.penet.fi> wrote last year
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> >Dear Leslie,
>>
>> > Nice effort. Keep up the good work !
>> >In article <4vlcui$1...@news1.t1.usa.pipeline.com>,
^^^^^^^
>> >lpa...@nyc.pipeline.com(Leslie E. Packer, PhD) wrote:
>> >
>> >> The following is a copy of an email I sent to the postmaster for
>> >> ties.k12.mn.us:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
If you read extremely carefully <and I do understand that, along with the
switching set problem and inability to profit by experience, you
evidently have an attentional problem, but do bear with me> you will see
the 'post' is in fact an _article_ to news sent by you, Bradley L.
Jesness, in response to a 'post'/_article_ to news, sent by Dr. L.
Packer. Do a search if you don't believe me.
THIS WAS A NEWSGROUP POST. Do you understand? If not people will see you
for what you are. Go to AV/DN and put in this search key, it is almost
certainly there for all to see:
-"-
Nice effort. Keep up the good work !
-"-
This is a direct copy/paste. No editing here.
Now for the rest:
In article <good_brad-290...@dial006.future.net>, Cognitee
<good...@hotmail.com> writes
>Dear Leslie,
> Peter's so-called "archives" are not to be trusted. Moreover, they do
>not constitute good evidence of anything.
Well, as a matter of fact they are. Everything in them can be verified by
taking a quick trip to AV/DN. You are archived outside of my HD, and
cannot change that. Or did you forget?
I did a quick 'GREP' search and found a message, the header of which
contained "From: from Allen Ivey <br...@future.net>". FYI, this is the
sort of stuff that slips past kill-files, such as mine, which requires a
new I/D for each variant:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
#! rnews 4098
Path: demon.co.uk!news.demon.co.uk!demon!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!news.m
athworks.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!skypoint.com!usenet
From: from Allen Ivey <br...@future.net>
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Newsgroups: sci.psychology.psychotherapy,sci.psychology.misc,alt.society.
mental-health,alt.support,sci.psychology.personality,alt.psychology
Subject: Re: Peer Counselors, not (typically) "therapists"
Date: 20 Jan 1996 21:03:51 GMT
Organization: Client Advocates
Lines: 64
Message-ID: <4drlbn$1...@stratus.skypoint.net>
References: <4dc2ov$l...@stratus.skypoint.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: dial001.future.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.12(Macintosh; I; PPC)
X-URL: news:4dc2ov$l...@stratus.skypoint.net
Xref: news.demon.co.uk sci.psychology.psychotherapy:3437
sci.psychology.misc:3765 alt.society.mental-health:1613 alt.support:2889
sci.psychology.personality:1010 alt.psychology:2328
>Below is a message from Allen Ivey. He tried to post it himself but his
>system gave him trouble. He told me to go ahead and try to post it for
>him. It is his response to BRAD's position:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
<no comment>
I have a few more of these.
Here's some other abuse:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In article: <45os58$4...@cu.comp-unltd.com> Brad <psyc...@imt.net>
writes:
> Yeh, yeh, yeh. We know the rules ladies: "you're always right." One
> can always think she's always right. Thinking so is not necessarily an
> accomplishment unless you do not care about sound reason (then I guess
> you could be confident you've accomplished something). BUT I DON'T OBEY
> THE RULES. To me women are high imaginative, think more than they do or
> actually accomplish (big problem) and have a beguilingly deceptive
> (including self-deceptive) form of mental masturbation they do almost at
> all times. They may be more human in some ways; but this may just be
> more evil.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
and
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In article <4necfd$3...@nntpa.cb.att.com>, Kenneth Almquist
<k...@socrates.hr.att.com> writes
>>>> I am outraged. If I did say any of that (you quote) at all it was in
>>>> **another newsgroup**. (PLEASE ADMIT THAT IS THE CASE.) I think this
>>>> is an excellent example of misrepresentation, intended to discredit one
>>>> in this newsgroup. -- B J
>>
>> Frank, I would also like to add the following to your point; the
>> original posting was sent to a 'sci.psychology...' newsgroup.
>
>It was sci.psychology.misc. A lady posted about the problems with her
>relationship with her boyfriend, stating that she was confused but
>couldn't afford to see a psychologist right then so she was turning to
>the net. I have a hard time understanding how anyone could have read
>this lady's post without feeling some empathy for her; personally I
>devoted a considerable amount of time trying to think up a helpful
>response. But Brad's first response began:
>
>> I find love from a woman to be extraordinarily RARE. Love in this
>> society is RARE. I thus do not feel for you Krista at all. I am quite
>> inclined to think you are a spoiled brat.
>
>Brad then posted another half dozen followups, all under different
>aliases. One of these followups was the sexist article posted earlier
>in this thread. Another, posted under the alias "HOT HUNK", stated:
>"Keep him. Every man is a gift from God."
>
>I don't know whether Brad is an evil person at heart. But his unfeeling
>replies to an honest plea for help are the closest thing I've seen to an
>unforgivable sin committed on USENET.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, indeed. Certainly not professional behaviour. Not the behaviour one
would expect from a professional hot on ethics, and one calling for more
research into concerns he expresses WRT ethics in the therapy field.
No way. Absolutely n-o-t.
>**MOREOVER**: THERE IS NO GOOD
>or REASONABLE EVIDENCE OF ANY SIGNIFICANT WRONG-DOING OF ANY KIND ON MY
>PART *WHATSOEVER*. YOU, IN CONSTRAST, HAVE BEEN LAW SUIT BAIT (in my
>view).
<Quintuply so yourself, at the very least, my "good man".>
Ask ties.kmn. They didn't agree, ISTR. Moreover, I am sure that your
professional societies and employer would be interested to hear your
false claim. I am pretty certain that this highly unprofessional
misrepresentation is a serious matter in the USA.
If you were a BPS member of any consequence and made such a claim there
would be consequences; a disciplinary hearing, I think, of which there
are reports in 'The Psychologist' every month. Professional standards.
Ask Paul Barrett.
All I need are the e-mail addresses of the APA/APS and the address of
your employer - would you care to supply them, or does the anonymous
poster have to oblige me?
> And now you THANK the libelous "Anonymous" poster !!
Aha. Yes, thank you indeed. Thank you for reminding me. It was remiss and
selfish of me not to have said as much before now.
Thank you, anonymous, whoever you are.
>What sort of
>maral depravity is this !! All know there are both false and unprovable
>accusations in the so-called "FAQ". But, Leslie, THE ABUSER, strikes
>again!! She cannot help her outbursts (if only they were as approporiate
>as many of her Tourette clients' behaviors !!) You must really have sh**
>for brains. You are morally corrupt and lack decency, Leslie.
Now this _is_ litigable, and you thus chance your arm. I am keeping this
post. This post, _your_ post, is consistent with your history of 2 +
years abusing people, is abusive. An exemplar of the genre.
> You are an experiemntal psychologist IN PARTICULAR, because this is
>what you have your DEGREE in.
Whereas you are an artist, with two arts degrees, and some postgraduate
hours. These must also be arts based if they are to bear any relevance to
your training in arts, I imagine? You should stick to art, Mister
Jesness, because you are certainly not a therapeutically minded man, and
are certainly no scientist.
>I cannot help that the goofy state of New
>York
I see that you are also making friends with the "goofy state of New
York?"
> issues only one license and it says "psychologist", you are STILL
>(specifically speaking) an EXPERIMENTAL psychologist **AND ***NOT*** a
>Clinical OR a Counseling psychologist. You should make this clear and
>make the sort of clients you work with clear when RELEVANT and stop
>misleading people.
Dr. Packer has never done so. Her response to your multiple 'retard'
posts last year was always professional and accurate. I know this because
I have some of each in my archives, and remember your obloquies,
calumnies, and outright aggression when you found that Dr. Packer indeed
knew more of statistics and psychology than you, the _arts_ postgraduate.
You cannot bear to be wrong. You cannot bear for a woman to be right. You
cannot bear for a therapist to be right. You have Ph.D. envy. Or Ph.D.
fear.
> Hey, now I find out your some of your "patients" may bark like dogs
>!!! Too bad your undesirable behaviors are not that "tame" or appropriate
>!!!
Well, now I can see your membership/s and prospects sliding down the
drain of incongruence, unconditional negative regard and whatnot, Mister
Bradgers.
How insulting. How untherapeutic. How unprofessional. How on _earth_ can
you claim to be an advocate, a counsellor and a trainer of counsellors?
Just _how_? And how can you honestly expect people to believe - behaving
as you do - that a second moderated group, sppm, is unjustified and an
attempt at censorship?
These are _people_ you speak of. Human beings. Just like you, except that
it is just possible that they experience more pain and hardship than you
can evidently empathise. You, the so-called Rogerian.
Oh dear. Better a humane behaviourist than an inhumane and spiteful
Rogerian, methinks.
>P.S. One of Gene's questions is really good.
I believe that Gene may wish to stay clear of this. I think that he has
recently witnessed the real problems in spp, and I think that he may have
undergone a sea change in his view. Perhaps I am wrong, but he certainly
does not seem to agree with you, Mister Jesness, from what I see
following my last logon.
>I wonder how I would be
>countered (if I was still around) without the PERSONAL ABUSES that have
>been the stock and trade of many of my opponents. This has clearly been
>Leslie's mode, oftentimes.
Let's share some of your abuse with those voters as yet unable to decide.
Unable to decide whether the poor, abused, aggressed, be-spammed,
defamed, harrassed, insulted, long-suffering, villified, vituperated,
posters of spp deserve a second, very mildly moderated group, one in
which you will also be welcome if you comply with the charter:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In article <4l78lr$5...@stratus.skypoint.net> , NoteToKillfileUsers
<you.@know.it> writes
>Dear Killfile Users:
> I support your desire to use a killfile on me. But someone is
>tampering with my posts. If this or any other action to limit my 1st
>Amendment freedoms occurs I shall come back under anon names (and they may
>vary). Please encourage all to respect my rights and I shall respect your
>perogatives. It is your choice. If I have *any* more problems of *any
>kind*, everyone involved with killfiles can forget about them. -- b
>jesness
-------------------------------------------------------------------
> In article <4tjd6l$o...@stratus.skypoint.net>, Cognitee
> <Cogn...@aol.com> writes
> >Yes, Leslie,
> > I am too important and busy to look up the papermill where you
> >received your rag.
> > I will get back to you on effect sizes and the citation. It was NOT
> >common two decades ago.
>
> >(P.S. I am a masocist, how about a date? *we seem to have become
> >close, dear)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
> In article <4tjiid$r...@stratus.skypoint.net>, Cognitee
> <Cogn...@aol.com> writes
> >Leslie,
> > You sultry sexy woman among women... (just trying to imagine
> >something good about you).
-------------------------------------------------------------------
> In article <4tjn8l$t...@stratus.skypoint.net>, Cognitee
> <Cogn...@aol.com> writes
> >Dear Leslie,
> > What did you say: Your a tart? (requisite insult complete)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
> In article <4tjne0$t...@stratus.skypoint.net>, Cognitee
> <Cogn...@aol.com> writes
> >Go screw yourself at least once this year; do us all a favor.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
>Hi Leslie,
> Thanks for your open offer of e-mail. Someone wrote to me telling me
>I've been right on with my characterization of you (GREATLY OPINIONATED,
>BUT IMPERVIOUS AND CLOSED TO INPUT) . I hate pushy women too, BTY. I more
>often "aggress" against them more. Worthless ******, dependent as
>convenient, emasculating othertimes. Leaders almost never. Terrible
>deans, often can't handle dominace properly (research shows). Maybe we
>can meet for a date sometime. Let's talk penis envy. -- bj
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In article <4tt5n8$f...@stratus.skypoint.net>, Cognitee
<Cogn...@aol.com> writes
>And MS. Leslie "oh, <laughing with feigned modesty>, not-that-kind"
>Packer:
> I love these threats from you: "And just to remind you -- any email
>you might send me will be displayed publicly if I see fit."
> What if I mailed you a note to your <snip> _____ address? Would you
[snipped by me, Peter]
>publish that here? What if I called you on the phone at you <snip>
[snipped by me, Peter]
>phone nuber, would you tape it and transcribe the content to post it?
>What if I wrote or called you at your other place? Just curious. How
>abusive of persoan communication would you be?? -- b jesness
-------------------------------------------------------------------
I do have many, many more, Mister Jesness. Would you like me to compile
another selection for public delectation?
>She has repeated bad things against me that
>were totally false and had NO basis in evidence. WHAT A GIGANTIC,
>MIS-BEHAVED BIG BABY !!! Other things were greatly distorted and
>exaggerated and misrepresented to try to do character assassination. This
>has been the main tactic of several in the newsgroup (and the ONLY way
>***SEVERAL** have ever opposed my views -- i.e. with inappropriate hostile
>aggression).
>
>In article <3397cc01...@news.pipeline.com>, lpa...@pipeline.com wrote:
>
>> To All:
<snipping bandwidthly>
You do realise that no character assassination is necessary here, don't
you? You are assassinating yourself. You are in the process of convincing
onlookers - disinterested or otherwise - of the very real need for people
who work in the psychology/caring professions to have a marginally
moderated newsgroup. One in which they may express their professional
views without receiving abuse - and I include the scientists here, one of
whose ISPs you attempted to tinker with.
No one will believe your comments any longer after this. Your defammatory
posts are worsening by the hour. You have sunk to the very pit of ordure.
Well, Mister Jesness, now to what I hope is my last forward to
news. This is the moment that I have deliberately held off from.
I have changed my mind from "yes" to "no" many, many, many times.
Out of some pity and compassion for you. However, I see your
divisive tactics and the fragmentation you inspire in the
audience - pathos is here in news again, I see - for what they
are.
This has taken more than a year to happen, and is prompted only by your
personal assaults in type on posters from spp during this RFD. So
desperate are you to forestall the creation of a second news group, where
professionals can at least argue in a manner consonant with their
profession.
How anyone can fail to support the creation of a second moderated
newsgroup after this I do not know. I simply do not.
Here is your claim to Professorial status:
>Return-Path: <Cogn...@aol.com>
>Received: from punt2.demon.co.uk ([158.152.1.74])
> by brentano.demon.co.uk with SMTP id <GDyDYLA1...@brentano.demon.co.uk>
> for <Pe...@brentano.demon.co.uk> ; Mon, 20 May 1996 12:37:25 +0100
>Received: from punt-2.mail.demon.net by mailstore
> for Pe...@brentano.demon.co.uk id 832555282:12479:1;
> Mon, 20 May 96 02:21:22 BST
>Received: from emout15.mx.aol.com ([198.81.11.41]) by punt-2.mail.demon.net
> id aa12457; 20 May 96 2:21 +0100
>Received: by emout15.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA26530 for
>Pe...@brentano.demon.co.uk; Sun, 19 May 1996 21:21:03 -0400
>Date: Sun, 19 May 1996 21:21:03 -0400
>From: Cogn...@aol.com
>Message-ID: <96051921210...@emout15.mail.aol.com>
>To: Pe...@brentano.demon.co.uk
>Subject: Re: 'Thought for the day'
>
>I read nothing more beyond [cough] when one begins that way. I am not
>ignorant on emotions. I have read Izard, Lazarus, neo-Freudians... and
>countless others over decades. I don't know what you said, but shall risk
>not knowing. You are addressing a 42 y.o. professor
Dr. Frager, may I introduce you to Professor Jesness?
Plonk.
Without Prejudice.
--
Peter
Christy
What exactly do you consider to be Spastic? Brain Damaged? Since I am new
here i was just wondering, it sounds like you are trying to make a whole
new definition of Tourettes Syndrome one based on ignorance, am i correct?
Cognitee <good...@hotmail.com> wrote in article
<good_brad-270...@dial006.future.net>...
> Dear Arwen,
> I have my good points, too, huh?
> I was just pointing out that an experimental psychologist, apparently
> working with spactic, brain-damaged children in a low paying job, was not
> one to address the matter of the fees of clinical or counseling
> psychologists.
>
>
> In article <5me2tj$s...@dfw-ixnews11.ix.netcom.com>,
> ar...@ix.netcom.com(Arwen) wrote:
>
> > I find the comments noted below to be incredibly offensive. These are
> > the rants of an insensitive, arrogant and spiteful person. Brad calls
> > himself a "client advocate". Seems to me the only thing he advocates
> > is his own ideas. I've read this group everyday for two years and I am
> > sick of reading his mean-spirited, self-promoting, repetitive writings.
> > I'm sick of his lying, his paranoia, and his attack dog methods. I
> > would hope that in the moderated group comments like these would be
> > rejected. I look forward to the bote.
> >
> >
> > >>I snipped most of the post because I was only responding to this part
> > of it. If I'm not following proper netiquette, I'm sorry."
> >
> > In <good_brad-260...@ts003d02.mns-mn.concentric.net>
> > good...@hotmail.com (Cognitee) writes:
> > >
> > >Dear Leslie,
> > > >
> > > Do you work with spastics, not retards??? What do you do other than
> > >behavior mod? Why the big interest in neurology, if you do no testing
> > >here?? Why are you such a creep and always interested in "court"
> > issues.
> > >How do you figure you are a big shot??
> > >
>
Mother Hen
Peter wrote:
>
> Without Prejudice.
> --
> Peter
Peter........................
I stand.
clap, clap, clap,clap,clapclapclapclapclapclapclapclapclapclapclap......
Mother Hen
Mother Hen
Gene Douglas
Phil Jaquiery wrote:
>
> Hear, hear.
>
> And Hi Leslie, I thought I might pop in and lurk here for a while.
>
> Re fees: I would never advertise that I make concessions but I would never
> turn someone away if they really could not afford my fees.
>
I use a sliding scale, sort of a rubbery one at that. I don't ask
people to prove their income statements, and I sometimes hear remarks
further into treatment that tell me I've been had. But I hate to ask
people to produce their tax returns or pay stubs, because I think it
gets us off to a bad start.
I have worked for a county agency that did just that, but I didn't have
anything to do with what goes on in the clerk's office, so I could
separate myself from that part of the process.
I've never quite resolved a good way to be fair with the client, while
being fair to myself as well.
Gene
Leslie E. Packer, PhD
>ph...@openhart.demon.co.uk (Phil Jaquiery) wrote:
>Hear, hear.
>
>And Hi Leslie, I thought I might pop in and lurk here for a while.
>
>Re fees: I would never advertise that I make concessions but I would never
>turn someone away if they really could not afford my fees.
(Hi, yourself, Phil <s>)
I think most therapists would respond in similar ways. I just want to
be sure that the public knows to ask if they can't afford. People
I've talked to are always amazed that they can get top-notch or expert
care for reduced fees or nothing if they need it and if they feel that
they can approach the therapist, etc. I spoke to one of the MDs in
my area because her secretary/office manager never told callers that
there was a sliding scale available and people were too intimidated to
ask. She then instructed her staff to let callers know that although
her rates were X, a sliding scale was available. But most
professionals don't mention the other options unless someone asks.
.... Now: let me get back to the NLP thread where I know I owe both
you and Bill replies.... but those posts are really making me <gasp>
THINK! <g>
Cheers,
Leslie
<past post snipped>
Leslie E. Packer, PhD
>Gene Douglas <Gene...@prodigy.net> wrote:
<snip>
>>
>I use a sliding scale, sort of a rubbery one at that. I don't ask
>people to prove their income statements, and I sometimes hear remarks
>further into treatment that tell me I've been had.
Good point. Then (if you're like me), you land up feeling used and
wondering if you should ever be such a sap again.
I had one patient who I had negotiated reduced fees and an extended
payment schedule with. And he asked for even further reductions, etc.
When he fell behind on the agreement, I sent him a reminder note. He
told me he couldn't pay. Why couldn't he pay me for services already
rendered, you ask? Because he was going away on vacation with his
wife. Gee, I'd like to be able to go away on vacation, too (but not
with his wife <g>). That is the only time where I got SO ticked off
that I referred a bill to a collection agency.
>But I hate to ask
>people to produce their tax returns or pay stubs, because I think it
>gets us off to a bad start.
I've never asked for verification of need or income either, Gene.
>
>I have worked for a county agency that did just that, but I didn't have
>anything to do with what goes on in the clerk's office, so I could
>separate myself from that part of the process.
>
>I've never quite resolved a good way to be fair with the client, while
>being fair to myself as well.
>
Well, if you feel that the client isn't being fair to you, how does
that affect your ability to work with them, if it does?
>Gene
>
>
Leslie
Leslie E. Packer, PhD
>Peter <Pe...@brentano.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Without Prejudice.
>
>
<big snip concerning explaining why you are posting all this stuff,
Brad's misrepresentations, misogyny, inability to read attributions
and content accurately, questionable ethics, etc.>
>
>
>
>All I need are the e-mail addresses of the APA/APS and the address of
>your employer - would you care to supply them, or does the anonymous
>poster have to oblige me?
Will a non-anonymous poster do? You can download the entire APA
ethical standards by going to the APA's web pages and following the
links:
That's a fairly large file, as the APA's ethical standards tend to be
more detailed than most similar professional organizations.
If you want to e-mail them to request a form for filing an ethical
complaint, you might try sending an e-mail to prac...@apa.org
That's for the Practice Directorate. The Ethics Committee doesn't
seem to show an e-mail address, but you could ask the Practice
Directorate to forward your request to the Ethics Committee.
If you do request a formal complaint form, they will send you a
complete set of the ethical guidelines so you can 'tag' those
guidelines you feel he's violated.
I am not a member of the APS, so I can't help you there. Perhaps Paul
Bernhardt or Nancy Alvarado can give you that e-mail address.
And I don't know Brad's employer, or I'd tell you. I don't even know
if he has a current employer.
>
<little snip>
>
>> You are an experiemntal psychologist IN PARTICULAR, because this is
>>what you have your DEGREE in.
>
<snip>
>
>>I cannot help that the goofy state of New
>>York
>
>I see that you are also making friends with the "goofy state of New
>York?"
>
>> issues only one license and it says "psychologist", you are STILL
>>(specifically speaking) an EXPERIMENTAL psychologist **AND ***NOT*** a
>>Clinical OR a Counseling psychologist. You should make this clear and
>>make the sort of clients you work with clear when RELEVANT and stop
>>misleading people.
>
>Dr. Packer has never done so.
Right. I have never called myself a clinical psychologist or a
counseling psychologist. My employer called me a 'clinical
psychologist' at one position, and I couldn't stop them (despite
repeated requests on my part), but I have never described myself that
way. I tell people I'm a psychologist. Period. That's what
consistent with my state laws. And since the services I offer are
within the scope of my qualifications and competence, there is
absolutely no problem with my license.
>Her response to your multiple 'retard'
>posts last year was always professional and accurate. I know this because
>I have some of each in my archives, and remember your obloquies,
>calumnies, and outright aggression when you found that Dr. Packer indeed
>knew more of statistics and psychology than you, the _arts_ postgraduate.
>
>You cannot bear to be wrong. You cannot bear for a woman to be right.
Bingo!
> You
>cannot bear for a therapist to be right. You have Ph.D. envy. Or Ph.D.
>fear.
>
>> Hey, now I find out your some of your "patients" may bark like dogs
>>!!! Too bad your undesirable behaviors are not that "tame" or appropriate
>>!!!
>
>Well, now I can see your membership/s and prospects sliding down the
>drain of incongruence, unconditional negative regard and whatnot, Mister
>Bradgers.
>
>How insulting. How untherapeutic. How unprofessional. How on _earth_ can
>you claim to be an advocate, a counsellor and a trainer of counsellors?
>Just _how_?
Exactly.
>And how can you honestly expect people to believe - behaving
>as you do - that a second moderated group, sppm, is unjustified and an
>attempt at censorship?
>
>These are _people_ you speak of. Human beings. Just like you, except that
>it is just possible that they experience more pain and hardship than you
>can evidently empathise. You, the so-called Rogerian.
And they would show him a lot more compassion and consideration than
he has ever shown them. What a shame that he hasn't learned more
about different problems or learned to respect all people.
And I wonder if Brad would talk about a family member that way if they
had one of these problems. Or how he would feel if someone who
claimed to be a counseling instructor went around calling _his_ kid
"spastic" or "retard?"
>
>Oh dear. Better a humane behaviourist than an inhumane and spiteful
>Rogerian, methinks.
>
>>P.S. One of Gene's questions is really good.
>
>I believe that Gene may wish to stay clear of this. I think that he has
>recently witnessed the real problems in spp, and I think that he may have
>undergone a sea change in his view. Perhaps I am wrong, but he certainly
>does not seem to agree with you, Mister Jesness, from what I see
>following my last logon.
<nodding> I think Gene's responses in this thread have indicated that
although he may have had some contact with or compassion for Brad, he
is not going to condone such behavior.
>
<snip of repost of some of Brad's sexually harassing posts to me>
But I am leaving the following one, because someone recently suggested
that we take this to e-mail, and I didn't answer her, but perhaps now
she'll understand that after Brad had e-mailed me in the past, I had
warned him that I did not want him e-mailing me again because of the
sexual harassment and that if he did, I might reveal his e-mail
publicly. He then replied:
>-------------------------------------------------------------------
>In article <4tt5n8$f...@stratus.skypoint.net>, Cognitee
><Cogn...@aol.com> writes
>
>>And MS. Leslie "oh, <laughing with feigned modesty>, not-that-kind"
>>Packer:
>> I love these threats from you: "And just to remind you -- any email
>>you might send me will be displayed publicly if I see fit."
>> What if I mailed you a note to your <snip> _____ address? Would you
> [snipped by me, Peter]
>>publish that here? What if I called you on the phone at you <snip>
> [snipped by me, Peter]
>>phone nuber, would you tape it and transcribe the content to post it?
>>What if I wrote or called you at your other place? Just curious. How
>>abusive of persoan communication would you be?? -- b jesness
>-------------------------------------------------------------------
>
[And thank you for deleting the partial personal information he
posted, Peter.]
<snip>
>
>You do realise that no character assassination is necessary here, don't
>you? You are assassinating yourself.
One of our former presidents, Woodrow Wilson, supposedly said "Never
murder a man who's committing suicide."
<snip explaining why you are reluctantly posting the following>
>
>Here is your claim to Professorial status:
>
>>Return-Path: <Cogn...@aol.com>
>>Received: from punt2.demon.co.uk ([158.152.1.74])
>> by brentano.demon.co.uk with SMTP id <GDyDYLA1...@brentano.demon.co.uk>
>> for <Pe...@brentano.demon.co.uk> ; Mon, 20 May 1996 12:37:25 +0100
>>Received: from punt-2.mail.demon.net by mailstore
>> for Pe...@brentano.demon.co.uk id 832555282:12479:1;
>> Mon, 20 May 96 02:21:22 BST
>>Received: from emout15.mx.aol.com ([198.81.11.41]) by punt-2.mail.demon.net
>> id aa12457; 20 May 96 2:21 +0100
>>Received: by emout15.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA26530 for
>>Pe...@brentano.demon.co.uk; Sun, 19 May 1996 21:21:03 -0400
>>Date: Sun, 19 May 1996 21:21:03 -0400
>>From: Cogn...@aol.com
>>Message-ID: <96051921210...@emout15.mail.aol.com>
>>To: Pe...@brentano.demon.co.uk
>>Subject: Re: 'Thought for the day'
>>
>>I read nothing more beyond [cough] when one begins that way. I am not
>>ignorant on emotions. I have read Izard, Lazarus, neo-Freudians... and
>>countless others over decades. I don't know what you said, but shall risk
>>not knowing. You are addressing a 42 y.o. professor
>
<stunned> In an attempt to influence your opinion on a professional
issue, he misrepresented his credentials?
<deep exhale> That's a huge no-no. How _dare_ he even pretend that I
have ever misrepresented when he out and out LIED? How _dare_ he ever
accuse anyone about being concerned about status, etc., when he is so
obviously obsessed with status that he even LIED about it?
>Dr. Frager, may I introduce you to Professor Jesness?
>
>Plonk.
> Without Prejudice.
>--
>Peter
He probably doesn't understand what the 'without prejudice' even means
in this context.
Leslie
John M Price
Leslie E. Packer, PhD (lpa...@pipeline.com) wrote:
: >ph...@openhart.demon.co.uk (Phil Jaquiery) wrote:
:
: >Hear, hear.
: >
: >And Hi Leslie, I thought I might pop in and lurk here for a while.
: >
: >Re fees: I would never advertise that I make concessions but I would never
: >turn someone away if they really could not afford my fees.
:
: (Hi, yourself, Phil <s>)
:
: I think most therapists would respond in similar ways. I just want to
: be sure that the public knows to ask if they can't afford. People
And HARK! So too are the mean evil drug companies involved in this.
There are ways, and people do have to ask, that drugs can be provided for
little or no cost.
These mean evil corporations do realize, as my sig says, that life is
chemistry but with feeling. Hence at times they will give this stuff
away. Not that they want to, of course, it is their reason for being, and
how they allow the folk that work within them to feed their families.
And that last thought is often lost on most....
[snip]
--
John M. Price, PhD jmp...@calweb.com
Life: Chemistry, but with feeling! | PGP Key on request or by finger!
Email in response to my Usenet articles will be posted at my discretion.
'... misinterpretations change over time."
- Kevin D. Hudson
Phil Jaquiery
Don't think I'll bother Brad. It is enough for me that you understand my
point of view.
regards,
good...@hotmail.com (Cognitee) said something like:
>Dear Phil,
> I can understand your opinion and point of view. I suggest, if you
>really want to know, that you check just a good piece of the archive
>record of this group (via Deja or Alta Vista). I think you would be very
>enlightened. Just do a search using : "sci.psychology.psychotherapy" and
>"Cognitee" and any of several other characters ("Bernhardt", "Grohol",
>"Peter Brentano" "Leslie Packer" or "Dan Rogers"). Then, get back to me.
>
Phil Jaquiery,DHP,MIAH
Peter
Also Without Prejudice.
In article <338F75...@octet.com>, Mother Hen <cowa...@octet.com>
writes
Why, thank you. Not because I should feel particularly clever. It has
taken a considerable amount of time for me to even consider assembling
something remotely resembling a demolition job.
I waited until I felt that the discomfort he might experience was
outweighed by that he causes.
As a matter of fact, it took a considerable effort. My version of
Meniere's disease seems to make it almost impossible to stare at the
screen for long periods. <That is why I am today using DragonDictate
Solo to respond to you.>
It is quite clear from the tip of my archival iceberg that Mister
Jesness does not speak from a position of ethics, honesty, nor yet
even sagacity.
I did it because I see the debate is fragmenting into camps; because
the issues are becoming blurred; because Mister Jesness appears to
have convinced a number of posters new to the argument <they were not
here last year> of the wrongness of others, and of the correctness of
his views and position. This is just like being at work, except that
my team will not be split. Here things are much more tenuous.
I also did it because - as I made it clear when I withdrew as a
moderator candidate - I have nothing to lose. My reputation is not
important, as I am the lucky recipient of a career change and will
soon quietly forsake spp.
Remaining in moderation and remaining in spp would have been at odds
with possession of an archive containing the obscenities posted by
Mister Jesness. I could not have used them.
I waited. I took advice. I did not fire wasted shots. I let Mister
Jesness make this conclusion the only possible and logical one.
He did.
I cannot think of a poster in spp who has not had enough of his
abusive, nonsensical, unethical tirades. Lies can stick, people can be
sucked into believing them, as Curio has effectively proved, and now
Mister Bradley L. Jesness too.
Not in a moderated NG I suspect, although I want to remind people that
should there be a successful outcome they have this in their hands;
you can screw up, and revert to the flame pit leaving the moderated
group barren, or you can put up and talk up.
Please do put up. Perhaps Mister Jesness will follow suit, and perhaps
his posts to other groups will also conform. This is a unique chance.
Mister Jesness has attempted to terrorise and divide innocent posters
to news. I feel that this debate should not suffer the rebounds and
shock waves that he quite deliberately generates in pursuit of...
...oh, in pursuit of whatever his axe-grinding determines.
You see? I no longer believe in his stated agenda.
I want people to ignore him, unless his behaviour conforms to
reasonable standards of decency. I want posters to remain civil to one
another. I want newcomers to the debate to be aware that, no matter
how much they search the archives, they will not uncover some of the
more atrocious aspects of his behaviour. Including meddling with the
service provision of at least two scientists in spp <correction, not
one>. Including other protusions into the real world that have, quite
literally, left people in a state of anxiety, despair and misery.
Now please, will people new to this debate put supposed inequities to
one side and listen to the very real concerns that have driven people
to propose an unmoderated group. One in which any on topic,
non-abusive poster appears to be welcome.
To do otherwise is to be driven, duped, gulled, manipulated, played,
usurped. And that is what I believe Mister Jesness wants; it is the
only way he will secure an outcome that is to his satisfaction.
It's your choice; you can be fragmented, gulled, manipulated and
split, or you can look at the evidence presented to you.
To those swayed by the climate, please forget arguments about the FAQ,
please remember how difficult it has been for professionals therapists
and pure scientists to debate.
Please re-read the stuff that I variously forwarded, if necessary do
so in AV/DN.
Please then reconsider.
IOW, be my guest; choose, wisely.
Also Without Prejudice.
--
Peter
o o o o o o <o <o>
^|\ ^|^ v|^ v|v |/v |X| \| |
/\ >\ /< >\ /< >\ /< >\
o> o o o o o o o
\ x </ <|> </> <\> <)> |\
/< >\ /< >\ /< >\ >> L
Mr. email does the Macarena.
<Acknowledgement: Taken from a post to a witty, closed UK list.>
Peter
Without Prejudice.
In article <339994fb...@news.pipeline.com>, "Leslie E. Packer,
PhD"
<lpa...@pipeline.com> writes
>>Peter <Pe...@brentano.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Without Prejudice.
>>
>
>>
><big snip concerning explaining why you are posting all this stuff,
>Brad's misrepresentations, misogyny, inability to read attributions
>and content accurately, questionable ethics, etc.>
>>
>>
>>
>>All I need are the e-mail addresses of the APA/APS and the address of
>>your employer - would you care to supply them, or does the anonymous
>>poster have to oblige me?
>
>Will a non-anonymous poster do? You can download the entire APA
>ethical standards by going to the APA's web pages and following the
>links:
>
>http://www.apa.org/
Thank you very much, Leslie, I appreciate this. I will act on it
tomorrow night when I get back from work.
<snip, bandwidth, thank you again>
>I am not a member of the APS, so I can't help you there. Perhaps Paul
>Bernhardt or Nancy Alvarado can give you that e-mail address.
Paul? Nancy?
>And I don't know Brad's employer, or I'd tell you. I don't even know
>if he has a current employer.
Does anyone know?
><little snip>
>>
>
>>> You are an experiemntal psychologist IN PARTICULAR, because this is
>>>what you have your DEGREE in.
>>
><snip>
<snip of Mister Jesness>
You should make this clear and
>>>make the sort of clients you work with clear when RELEVANT and stop
>>>misleading people.
>>
>>Dr. Packer has never done so.
>
>Right. I have never called myself a clinical psychologist or a
>counseling psychologist. My employer called me a 'clinical
>psychologist' at one position, and I couldn't stop them (despite
>repeated requests on my part), but I have never described myself that
>way. I tell people I'm a psychologist. Period. That's what
>consistent with my state laws. And since the services I offer are
>within the scope of my qualifications and competence, there is
>absolutely no problem with my license.
You went to great lenghts to explain yourself, and were frequently
mischaracterised as a number of things, outside of the abuse you
received from him. You comported yourself admirably, even when he went
into in your life on the other side of your screen.
>>Her response to your multiple 'retard'
>>posts last year was always professional and accurate. I know this because
>>I have some of each in my archives, and remember your obloquies,
>>calumnies, and outright aggression when you found that Dr. Packer indeed
>>knew more of statistics and psychology than you, the _arts_ postgraduate.
>>
>>You cannot bear to be wrong. You cannot bear for a woman to be right.
>
>Bingo!
This bears leaving in, as it highlights a trait that is definitely
inadvisable in someone supposedly a counsellor, counselling instructor
and advocate.
He is a sexist, as well as an unethical, venomous, harassing liar.
>> You
>>cannot bear for a therapist to be right. You have Ph.D. envy. Or Ph.D.
>>fear.
>>
>>> Hey, now I find out your some of your "patients" may bark like dogs
>>>!!! Too bad your undesirable behaviors are not that "tame" or appropriate
>>>!!!
>>
>>Well, now I can see your membership/s and prospects sliding down the
>>drain of incongruence, unconditional negative regard and whatnot, Mister
>>Bradgers.
>>
>>How insulting. How untherapeutic. How unprofessional. How on _earth_ can
>>you claim to be an advocate, a counsellor and a trainer of counsellors?
>>Just _how_?
>
>Exactly.
I am leaving this in deliberately. I feel the point should be made
repeatedly. It provides context for the current RFD; IOW, it explains
the need for professional scientists and therapists to have a mildly
regulated and appropriate professional forum.
>>And how can you honestly expect people to believe - behaving
>>as you do - that a second moderated group, sppm, is unjustified and an
>>attempt at censorship?
>>
>>These are _people_ you speak of. Human beings. Just like you, except that
>>it is just possible that they experience more pain and hardship than you
>>can evidently empathise. You, the so-called Rogerian.
>
>And they would show him a lot more compassion and consideration than
>he has ever shown them. What a shame that he hasn't learned more
>about different problems or learned to respect all people.
GREP for windows found too many references by him to "retards" on my HD
for me to contemplate counting. I won't forward them all. Others can go
to the public archives, where his shame is displayed for all to see.
I hope that I never, ever make such comments about the suffering of
others. I also hope that Mister Jesness understands that this sort of
behaviour stimulated this second attempt at setting up a moderated
forum. If he has any insight into his behaviour he will understand the
depravity that people infer in him.
This is immoral mire. How any professional could speak thus I cannot for
the life of me understand.
It is inexcusable. It is unethical. It is compassionless. It is
heartless. It is _cruel_.
I can no longer forgive him.
>And I wonder if Brad would talk about a family member that way if they
>had one of these problems. Or how he would feel if someone who
>claimed to be a counseling instructor went around calling _his_ kid
>"spastic" or "retard?"
I was appalled when he tried to justify calling your patients retards by
saying he didn't know if they were spastics or not. Over here that sort
of talk gets you frozen out of conversations. At the very least.
>>Oh dear. Better a humane behaviourist than an inhumane and spiteful
>>Rogerian, methinks.
>>
>>>P.S. One of Gene's questions is really good.
>>
>>I believe that Gene may wish to stay clear of this. I think that he has
>>recently witnessed the real problems in spp, and I think that he may have
>>undergone a sea change in his view. Perhaps I am wrong, but he certainly
>>does not seem to agree with you, Mister Jesness, from what I see
>>following my last logon.
>
><nodding> I think Gene's responses in this thread have indicated that
>although he may have had some contact with or compassion for Brad, he
>is not going to condone such behavior.
I do hope there is a change. Perhaps he can climb down.
><snip of repost of some of Brad's sexually harassing posts to me>
>
>But I am leaving the following one, because someone recently suggested
>that we take this to e-mail, and I didn't answer her, but perhaps now
>she'll understand that after Brad had e-mailed me in the past, I had
>warned him that I did not want him e-mailing me again because of the
>sexual harassment and that if he did, I might reveal his e-mail
>publicly.
Then I must leave it here too.
>He then replied:
>>-------------------------------------------------------------------
>>In article <4tt5n8$f...@stratus.skypoint.net>, Cognitee
>><Cogn...@aol.com> writes
>>
>>>And MS. Leslie "oh, <laughing with feigned modesty>, not-that-kind"
>>>Packer:
>>> I love these threats from you: "And just to remind you -- any email
>>>you might send me will be displayed publicly if I see fit."
>>> What if I mailed you a note to your <snip> _____ address? Would you
>> [snipped by me, Peter]
>>>publish that here? What if I called you on the phone at you <snip>
>> [snipped by me, Peter]
>>>phone nuber, would you tape it and transcribe the content to post it?
>>>What if I wrote or called you at your other place? Just curious. How
>>>abusive of persoan communication would you be?? -- b jesness
>>-------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>[And thank you for deleting the partial personal information he
>posted, Peter.]
[I'd like to think I succeeded on previous occasions. I hope so.]
Thank you for making the point I would not; I might have been accused of
reading too much into his post.
I was also stunned. I still cannot believe that Mister Jesness wishes to
be taken seriously. I still cannot believe that others are unable to see
the paradox between withdrawing from the vote because of the
dynamics/interactions in this professionally specific debate and in spp.
Let's be clear on this; whoever posts the FAQ, no matter how misguided
they may be, is responding in the context of this man's grandiose
behaviour, claims, lies, vitriol, meddling with peoples' lives...
...oh...
It is an outrage, as are many of his other assertions, for example those
WRT Larry Lyons from whom he is currently backing down. Afraid to make
that telephone call to Larry's collaborator he requests an e-mail
address.
He has lied and libelled Larry Lyons too. He just couldn't resist.
><deep exhale> That's a huge no-no. How _dare_ he even pretend that I
>have ever misrepresented when he out and out LIED? How _dare_ he ever
>accuse anyone about being concerned about status, etc., when he is so
>obviously obsessed with status that he even LIED about it?
I had thought of saying "How _dare_ you, Mister Jesness, how _dare_ you
_lie_?".
He _LIED_.
How _dare_ he indeed. His credibility is lower than ground zero. How
DARE you behave in this way, _Mister_ Jesness?
How DARE you - the possessor of two arts degrees, and skimpy knowledge
of science - how DARE you impugn scientists such as Dr. Packer, Dr.
Price, Larry Lyons, Paul Bernhardt and many others? Then there are the
therapists.
>>Dr. Frager, may I introduce you to Professor Jesness?
>>
>>Plonk.
>> Without Prejudice.
>>--
>>Peter
>
>He probably doesn't understand what the 'without prejudice' even means
>in this context.
>
>Leslie
Probably not. His knowledge of law is also skimpy, ISTR.
In this context, perhaps you might like to see the item below. I am beta
testing a bolt-on e-mail kill system. It maintains a kill-file log. This
is what I found the other day, when I had finished picking out all of
the clutter related to the function of this program:
-"-
>Return-Path: <xx57...@anon.penet.fi>
>Received: from relay-10.mail.demon.net by mailstore
> for 7EKudDAu...@brentano.demon.co.uk id 861329249:10:29931:1;
> Fri, 18 Apr 97 03:07:29 BST
>Received: from future.net ([204.130.134.1]) by relay-9.mail.demon.net
> id aa0904651; 18 Apr 97 3:07 BST
>Received: from dial007.future.net (dial007.future.net [204.130.134.107]) by
>dream.future.net (8.6.10/8.6.10) with SMTP id VAA16813 for <7EKudDAu8UVzEwbw@
>brentano.demon.co.uk>; Thu, 17 Apr 1997 21:08:03 -0500
>Message-Id: <1997041802...@dream.future.net>
>Date: Thu, 17 Apr 1997 21:08:45 -0500
>From: xx57...@anon.penet.fi (Cognitee)
>To: 7EKudDAu...@brentano.demon.co.uk
>Subject: E-Mail to serve as Legal Notice of Libel
>Organization: Client Advocates
>Dear Peter 7EKudDAu...@brentano.demon.co.uk,
> I know you want no e-mail from me, but requirements of the law make it
>necessary for me to notify you that you may be charged with libel. In any
>case don't plan on having a clean record so you can ever come and work in
>the U.S. if you continue in your lying about me. "Undesirables" are not
>granted green cards. I shall take no further action, if you desist
>immediately. Otherwise I have a couple of avenues to turn to. This will
>occur if you repeat your actions of spreading KNOWN false information.
>Sorry for the e-mail, but this is not personal: It is legal
>notification. -- brad jesness
-"-
Very presumptious. Very underhand. Very unethical. A crock of lies. He
could not resist. Did he actually dare think that he was correct?
And elsewhere he wonders out loud why I am in contact with a barrister
at law? He once again took to intimidation. Now, however, he calls me
"libel bait" or some such, since I have called his bluff.
He has reaped that which he sewed - quite literally, as he has stitched
himself up a treat.
Cognitee
Dear Peter,
I have been a college instructor at 2 year and 4 year schools. At one
of the schools my boss, the Dean, referred to me as a "professor"
repeatedly. I guess in your mind he was using the term loosely, since it
was not on my contract. I guess, like my dean, I used the word loosely,
as did many of my students. This is not a matter of law. And, what you
are citing as the big "damaging" evidence against me is a single piece of
PERSONAL e-mail. It is you that are in violation of proprieties.
You may kiss my ass.
In article <Y182xWAv...@brentano.demon.co.uk>, Peter
Cognitee
Dear Peter,
I have referred to myself a "a professor" in only one piece of e-mail
and that is IT, ever. I And then I ***IMMEDIATELY*** informed you of the
title that was on my contract (**though he fails to post that bit of
PRIVATE e-mail**). I have NEVER EVER publically used that word
"professor" (though if I had I would have broken no law). As I said: I
IMMEDIATELY informed Peter of the title that was on my contract. No one
was ever mislead. If you think you can indicate any impropiety when I use
this word once to this one person in private e-mail *and then immediately
clarified my official contact title*, GO FOR IT. Again, this just shows
how lame it is when people must stick to honest means to try to
assaassinate my character. You have in the past not stuck with fair,
appropriate and honest means to try to assassinate my character.
For the information of readers: I have been a college instructor at
both 2 and 4 year colleges. While **I NEVER** referred to myself as
"professor" (but in one piece of e-mail to Peter, immediately corrected),
both my dean and several students did. I did not correct my dean.
In article <jQGoYIAa...@brentano.demon.co.uk>, Peter
Cognitee
Dear Leslie,
I have referred to myself a "a professor" in only one piece of e-mail
the title that was on my contract (though he fails to post that bit of
PRIVATE e-mail). I have NEVER EVER publically used that word "professor"
(though if I had I would have broken no law). As I said: I IMMEDIATELY
informed Peter of the title that was on my contract. No one was ever
mislead. If you think you can indicate any impropiety when I use this
word once to this one person in private e-mail *and then immediately
clarified my official contact title*, GO FOR IT. Again, this just shows
how lame it is when people must stick to honest means to try to
assaassinate my character. You have in the past not stuck with fair,
your just reward:
I would be glad to go on record about you Leslie, using only honest and
true information: You are a libelous person, who has intentionally
repeated false and/or unfounded lies against me maliciously. I could sue
you at will. Yes, you are a malicious liar and I COULD sue you. I will
sue you if I ever see you in court. Sue sue sue You you you. Clear B****
For the information of readers: I have been a college instructor at
both 2 and 4 year colleges. While **I NEVER** referred to myself as
"professor" (but in one piece of e-mail to Peter, immediately corrected),
both my dean and several students did. I did not correct my dean.
clarifie In article <339994fb...@news.pipeline.com>,
Cognitee
Dear Peter,
I have been a college instructor at 2 year and 4 year schools. At one
of the schools my boss, the Dean, referred to me as a "professor"
repeatedly. I guess in your mind he was using the term loosely, since it
in only one piece of private *e-mail* and that is IT, *ever*. I And
**then** I ***IMMEDIATELY*** informed Peter of the title that was on my
contract (though he *fails* to post that bit of PRIVATE e-mail). I have
NEVER EVER publically used that word "professor" (though if I had I would
as did many of my students. This is not a matter of law. I informed
Peter IMMEDIATELY of my formal title.
And, Peter, what you are citing as the big "damaging" evidence against
me is a single SELECTIVE piece of PERSONAL e-mail. You do not include the
whole dialog. It is you that are in violation of proprieties. Peter, you
are also a libelous individual who has, in the past, knowingly repeated
falsehoods about me that you either KNEW where false or wthat you were
told were false and unfounded.
You may kiss my ass. Libelous BUGGER . I could sue sue sue. You you you.
In article <Y182xWAv...@brentano.demon.co.uk>, Peter
<Pe...@brentano.demon.co.uk> wrote:
Cognitee
DEAR Libelous Leslie, f****** B****,
Kiss it. Bite me. YES, BITE ME !!! We still do not know what your
real day-to-day job is. But we see how evasive and defensive you get
!!!! I think you are insane. All this vile is due simply to you not
being willing to simply and clearly describe your everyday GRUNT job.
You have not **yet** done this !!! Instead you describe you "high status"
volunteer and "consulting" work. Sick, sick, sick, sick. You are
NOTHING to me. You have NOTHING. I have plenty. You are screwed.
Do you even have some of your little clients writing to me to harass
me in e-mail now? This is about your moral level alright. I suppose
you told them I call Tourette's people retarded and spactic, when I only
KNEW you dealt with SOME Tourette's people a couple days ago. Before that
I was basically querying you. Are your brain damaged clients retarded?,
spastic? (About all I knew is that you dealt with brain damaged people.)
Then I hear Tourette's. Now I have letters. Great. Keep lying. I got
yah, baby. Not vice versa.
You and libelous Diane and Peter should all be together in HELL someday.
In article <339994fb...@news.pipeline.com>, lpa...@pipeline.com wrote:
Cognitee
"cowardin" seems to be a very appropriate address for you.
Cognitee
Well, gee Lelsie,
I spoke to a lot of people. Maybe I am a nuclear physicist !!!!
In article <33958a98...@news.pipeline.com>, lpa...@pipeline.com wrote:
> >ph...@openhart.demon.co.uk (Phil Jaquiery) wrote:
>
> >Hear, hear.
> >
> >And Hi Leslie, I thought I might pop in and lurk here for a while.
> >
> >Re fees: I would never advertise that I make concessions but I would never
> >turn someone away if they really could not afford my fees.
>
> (Hi, yourself, Phil <s>)
>
> I think most therapists would respond in similar ways. I just want to
> be sure that the public knows to ask if they can't afford. People
Cognitee
I can't imagine Leslie could know about fees !! What is her JOB,
anyway? She STILL HAS NOT SAID what her **regular** PAID job IS
!!!!!!! SHE IS A PRETENDER if she is personally discussing Clinical or
Counseling psychology. She is NOT either of those things. She know
NOTHING of this firsthand. I think she is a grunt !!!!!!!
I will never get off your back on this Leslie, you phoney !!!!!!
Cognitee
Stupid bas***** just like what they like and believe what they believe.
No "sci." here !!!!!
In article <338fe276....@news.demon.co.uk>,
Dan Rogers
Painful lessons, aren't they?
Over the years, I have become very rigid. Partly because I want to be
treated and reimbursed fairly, partly because I really believ that
clients do better when I am firm.
I am not very flexible on appointment times. I have certain times
available, I am out of the office before 5:00, and I do not work over
lunch time. Clients are not given any reason to believe that I will
work at other times. I explain that I have to be at my best, and working
too long makes that impossible. It's funny, in the past 10 years, only
two clients have been unable to come during the available times, when
they were given no choice.
I do not have a sliding fee schedule. My fee is rigid and it is made
very clear from the start. There is no repayment schedule. Some people,
I refer to the mental health clinic where they have financial support.
Some, who are highly motivated clients, I set a reduced fee that fits
with their income, and they have to pay after each session. Others, I
simply see for free. They are willing to work hard, and I feel that I
should reward them for their motivation.
But I am not willing to embark upon an enterprise with produces indebt-
edness for a client. They don't need more stress, nor do they need the
failure of being unable to pay.
All evaluations must be paid for in advance if there is any forensic
implication.
I had a collection rate of nearly 100% last year. I can concentrate on
being a professional and a caregiver.
Leslie E. Packer, PhD wrote:
>
> >Gene Douglas <Gene...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>
> <snip>
> >>
> >I use a sliding scale, sort of a rubbery one at that. I don't ask
> >people to prove their income statements, and I sometimes hear remarks
> >further into treatment that tell me I've been had.
>
> Good point. Then (if you're like me), you land up feeling used and
> wondering if you should ever be such a sap again.
>
> I had one patient who I had negotiated reduced fees and an extended
> payment schedule with. And he asked for even further reductions, etc.
> When he fell behind on the agreement, I sent him a reminder note. He
> told me he couldn't pay. Why couldn't he pay me for services already
> rendered, you ask? Because he was going away on vacation with his
> wife. Gee, I'd like to be able to go away on vacation, too (but not
> with his wife <g>). That is the only time where I got SO ticked off
> that I referred a bill to a collection agency.
--
Jack Straw
Face it Cognitee, you are a harassing Kook. You and Clarence Thomas are two
birds of the same feather.
Jack Straw
Cognitee
Dear Christy,
Leslie only told me she worked with Tourette's people **2 days ago**.
Apparently these are SOME of the clients she has, though maybe not the
main ones (and maybe NOT in her regular paid work). I had no knowledge of
his before two days ago. Before a week ago, I knew only that Leslie
worked with brain-damaged people (mainly kids). I found out a week ago
that they were brain-damaged with mainly with "motor" problems (and this
was not elaborated on). I cannot be faulted for being in error or
ignorance about Leslie's clients. She has not described her typical
client. In fact, SHE STILL has not described her regular paid work. She
is too embarrassed (or something) !!!!!
In article <01bc6d44$7fe74d40$0c0835cf@christy>, "Christy"
Cognitee
blah, blah, blah. Leslie Packer is not a Counseling OR a Clinical
Psychologist. Who know what she does? She really won't say what she does
in her regular paid job (no specifics anyway). My best guess is she
works mainly (when working for money) with brain-damaged kids who mainly
have SOME sort of "motor" problems. She does some work (or at least some
unpaid work) with Tourette's people.
All the rest of her blither is crap ("blah, blah, blah"); it is Leslie
acting big and LIKE she knows. My view is: She does nothing but parrot
some stuff she has heard (and she has little basis for opinion). A big
shot, mouth, with hostility to match. A parrot for the establishment and
status quo, that she likes to brown-nose !!! She does this to have
further "status through acquaintances", in my assessment. In my
assessment she is very sick.
P.S. You talk about hostility. Well, maybe you are overdue. Maybe I
will step in whereever I can muster a sincere opinion, like you other
a**holes !!! I certainly will be presenting no more essays here. I used
to just stick to my essay topics, but your harassment drove me out of that
good mode. I have nothing better to do than just chime in and maybe give
some ignoramouses a taste of their own opinionated ways.
In article <33a12835...@news.pipeline.com>, lpa...@pipeline.com wrote:
> >Jenny Sandy <sa...@freenet.msp.mn.us> wrote:
>
> >i have something else to add to this little discussion. i saw my
> >therapist today and she told me that next week she'll have a write up to
> >send to the county so my medical assistance will pay for weekly
> >sessions. she told me that we would go over it to make sure she has all
> >her facts straight and stuff like that.
> >
> >i asked her if their would be an addition charge for the time she spent
> >writing it up. she looked at me really funny.....and told me that it's a
> >part of her job and she gets paid for it from my sessions. she includes
> >all those little extras in session fees.
> >
> >just my two cents.....again.
> >
> >jenny
>
> Hi, Jenny.
>
> What your therapist does seems to work very well for her and for you,
> and that's terrific. I think that many therapists do incorporate a
> certain amount of 'paper work' into their hourly fees. Those who
> don't may prefer to keep hourly rates low so that patients who don't
> need paperwork aren't paying as much for their services. There are
> pro's and con's to both.
>
> For example, I have one insurance carrier I deal with on behalf of a
> particular patient. I worked out a fee arrangement with them that I
> told them would include quarterly detailed reports. If they needed
> more than that, the additional reports would be billable. That works
> with them. In other cases, I have billed separately for paperwork
> because there's so much of it and I have no way of anticipating what
> I'm going to be asked to provide, etc. (those are usually the cases
> where there's litigation involved and you have attorneys providing
> legal demands for 300 pages of charts, notes, etc. etc. <groan>).
>
> But reading your post, I get the sense that your therapist answering
> you that way made you feel even better about her -- that she wasn't
> just looking to nickel and dime you to death. And that feeling that
> your therapist isn't just out for every possible dollar is important,
> isn't it?
>
> Regards,
>
> Leslie
Cognitee
Well, I think I may be greater than Clarence Thomas.
Seriously, Jack,
I used to only participate in threads where I had some special
degree of background and opinion. **I** have been harrassed by so many
pety, biased, small minds, who simply said what they believed (on NO good
basis, over and over), that I decided to "step out" now and spout off at
will, too!! Let's see how the mindless indiscriminate abusers like me
know !!!
In article <01bc6e06$13b1a680$260e1881@default>, "Jack Straw"
Decimal Point
Hi Dan:
I respect this very much.. you are honest, straighforward and ready to work
for the client. The agreement is established and BOTH parties know what is
expected of them up front. You also deserve time for yourself and your family
too so I fully understand your 8-5 type schedule! Taking care of the self is
essential for BOTH parties.
Let me just offer my own experience with regard to payments. When I first
started seeing my therapist.. I was under a HMO and was covered for as few
visits as absolutely necessary.. after understanding the ability of the mind
to undermine.. I began to understand that I could grow from continuing
sessions beyond the agreed HMO available sessions. When I told my therapist
that I intended to stay but that I no longer wanted the insurance company
involved.. he immediately offered his services at a substantially reduced cost
to me.. and when I could I bumped it back up to his normal rate. This I
believe is actually an example of how an HMO CAN work.. for the initial rough
time (emergency ?) the HMO did its job - a relationship was allowed to form
that I understood as valuable.. and so I carried on with the sessions..
It was actually part of the trust that was formed in the relationship - and
trust IS a two way street.
Take Care
D.Barker
In article <33907D...@NOia.SPAMfrontiercomm.net> Dan Rogers
<dlro...@NOia.SPAMfrontiercomm.net> writes:>From: Dan Rogers
<dlro...@NOia.SPAMfrontiercomm.net>>Subject: Re: Fees
>Date: Sat, 31 May 1997 14:34:52 -0500
Cognitee
Dear "Jack",
Please register for one politically correct token; eventually you may
be able to redeam them for a cob up the rear !!!
Leslie E. Packer, PhD
>Peter <Pe...@brentano.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Without Prejudice.
>
>In article <339994fb...@news.pipeline.com>, "Leslie E. Packer,
>PhD"
><lpa...@pipeline.com> writes
>>>Peter <Pe...@brentano.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> Without Prejudice.
<big snip>
>
After reviewing past posts of Mr. Jesness, you commented:
>He is a sexist, as well as an unethical, venomous, harassing liar.
>
Those two nouns and three adjectives just about says it all.
<snip about his _numerous_ posts characterizing individuals with
disabilities as "retards" or "spastics">
>
>GREP for windows found too many references by him to "retards" on my HD
>for me to contemplate counting. I won't forward them all. Others can go
>to the public archives, where his shame is displayed for all to see.
They will find the same kind of vile, harassing behavior that he has
been displaying again. And if they follow the sequence of threads,
they will see in how many cases, Mr. Jesness was the initiator (not
"victim") of verbal abuse, allegations of unethical conduct, threats
about licensing violations, and claims of misrepresentation. They
will also see that he showed a public disrespect to the APA ethical
guidelines by which he is bound and to the laws and statutes of his
own state wrt describing himself as a 'developmental psychologist.'
And of course, they will see his comments about my patients and those
whom I advocate for.
>
>I hope that I never, ever make such comments about the suffering of
>others. I also hope that Mister Jesness understands that this sort of
>behaviour stimulated this second attempt at setting up a moderated
>forum. If he has any insight into his behaviour he will understand the
>depravity that people infer in him.
>
>This is immoral mire. How any professional could speak thus I cannot for
>the life of me understand.
He is not a professional anything.
>
>It is inexcusable. It is unethical. It is compassionless. It is
>heartless. It is _cruel_.
>
>I can no longer forgive him.
>
I don't know what took you so long.
>>And I wonder if Brad would talk about a family member that way if they
>>had one of these problems. Or how he would feel if someone who
>>claimed to be a counseling instructor went around calling _his_ kid
>>"spastic" or "retard?"
>
>I was appalled when he tried to justify calling your patients retards by
>saying he didn't know if they were spastics or not. Over here that sort
>of talk gets you frozen out of conversations. At the very least.
>
<snip of more posts, including revealing personal information>
>>>
>>[And thank you for deleting the partial personal information he
>>posted, Peter.]
>
>[I'd like to think I succeeded on previous occasions. I hope so.]
You did. Not to worry.
>
I'm leaving this part in, so that it is again in the archives.
Was there any more to the letter that you omitted from your public
post? I only ask because there is no punctuation after "42 y.o.
professor" and perhaps he wrote something that clarified it in the
same letter?
>
>I was also stunned. I still cannot believe that Mister Jesness wishes to
>be taken seriously. I still cannot believe that others are unable to see
>the paradox between withdrawing from the vote because of the
>dynamics/interactions in this professionally specific debate and in spp.
>
>Let's be clear on this; whoever posts the FAQ, no matter how misguided
>they may be, is responding in the context of this man's grandiose
>behaviour, claims, lies, vitriol, meddling with peoples' lives...
>...oh...
>
>It is an outrage, as are many of his other assertions, for example those
>WRT Larry Lyons from whom he is currently backing down. Afraid to make
>that telephone call to Larry's collaborator he requests an e-mail
>address.
He is no different from Curio in this respect, who no matter what
reality is, persists in his twisted views of reality.
>
>He has lied and libelled Larry Lyons too. He just couldn't resist.
>
>><deep exhale> That's a huge no-no. How _dare_ he even pretend that I
>>have ever misrepresented when he out and out LIED? How _dare_ he ever
>>accuse anyone about being concerned about status, etc., when he is so
>>obviously obsessed with status that he even LIED about it?
>
>I had thought of saying "How _dare_ you, Mister Jesness, how _dare_ you
>_lie_?".
>
>He _LIED_.
>
>How _dare_ he indeed. His credibility is lower than ground zero. How
>DARE you behave in this way, _Mister_ Jesness?
Zero credibility. I wonder what Allen Ivey and Paul Barrett would
think if they saw his behavior here or read his e-mail, etc.
>
>How DARE you - the possessor of two arts degrees, and skimpy knowledge
>of science - how DARE you impugn scientists such as Dr. Packer, Dr.
>Price, Larry Lyons, Paul Bernhardt and many others? Then there are the
>therapists.
>
Well, now slow down, Peter... over here, some psych programs are
within the Arts. At some universities, a degree in psych is a B.A.,
while at other universities, it is a B.S. Same thing with the masters
degrees. My bachelors and masters' degrees are B.A. and M.A.
Obviously, I was in experimental and rigorous programs, but because
psychology emerged from the 'softer' elements, it just stayed within
the Arts at my university. So I don't make much of whether it's an
Arts or Sciences degree. I look at what the person actually knows.
In Mr. Jesness's case, it's clear that he lacks basic skills in design
and analysis, as well as the ability to comprehend research reports.
He's making it up as he goes along, isn't he?
> In any
>>case don't plan on having a clean record so you can ever come and work in
>>the U.S. if you continue in your lying about me. "Undesirables" are not
>>granted green cards. I shall take no further action, if you desist
>>immediately. Otherwise I have a couple of avenues to turn to.
They're called "dead ends" or "cul de sacs" in his case.
>This will
>>occur if you repeat your actions of spreading KNOWN false information.
>>Sorry for the e-mail, but this is not personal: It is legal
>>notification. -- brad jesness
> -"-
>
>Very presumptious. Very underhand. Very unethical. A crock of lies. He
>could not resist. Did he actually dare think that he was correct?
<laughing> Perhaps he was trying to do something similar to what he
had received from my attorney who had notified him by e-mail that we
might pursue action against him. I'd rather not post her e-mail
publicly, you understand, but I am quite convinced that Mr. Jesness
has no legal counsel and is making an utter fool of himself in this
regard.
>
>And elsewhere he wonders out loud why I am in contact with a barrister
>at law? He once again took to intimidation. Now, however, he calls me
>"libel bait" or some such, since I have called his bluff.
>
>He has reaped that which he sewed - quite literally, as he has stitched
>himself up a treat.
>
> Without Prejudice.
>--
>Peter
> o o o o o o <o <o>
>^|\ ^|^ v|^ v|v |/v |X| \| |
> /\ >\ /< >\ /< >\ /< >\
>
> o> o o o o o o o
> \ x </ <|> </> <\> <)> |\
>/< >\ /< >\ /< >\ >> L
>
> Mr. email does the Macarena.
>
><Acknowledgement: Taken from a post to a witty, closed UK list.>
Leslie
(who does _not_ do the Macarena <g>)