Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Peter YOU have WON !! (signed, Brad)

1 view
Skip to first unread message

Cognitee

unread,
Aug 4, 1997, 3:00:00 AM8/4/97
to

Dear Peter:
You have won against me. I shall not remain in this group long. I
made a fatal error. I did not remain anonymous. Now the question to ask
is: at what price is your "victory" ? True, I cannot endure the
harassment and abuse and malicious libel anymore. Anyone who comes here
with any controversial views (or actually anyone who comes here at all) is
foolish if they do not remain anonymous. I have suffered repeated
attempts at falsely-based character assassination. I am simply mobbed by
a gang of thugs who hit me with a collected bunch of baseless charges
AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN (different people at different times, but over
and over again). (And they do this in spite of the fact that ALL the
charges have already been responded to and all questions have been
answered by me OVER AND OVER again. THIS IS SIMPLY ABUSIVE, MALICIOUS,
LIBELOUS HARASSMENT.) This cannot be endured indefinitely. You haveWORN
me DOWN with your character assination techniques. BUT AT WHAT COST IS
YOUR "VICTORY"??
The question is, what have you lost ? Answer: the respect of the
world. The tactics you have used make this a group NO ONE with any
reputation would participate in. Very simply, your tactics of repeatedly
making charges without proof (and some for which there could be no proof)
and REPEATEDLY making charges **that have been shown false** is so
unseemly that no one with any better forum to participate in would
particpate here. In short, the lack of much good discussion here is YOUR
fault and the fault of the gang of
thugs you participate with (esp. Leslie Packer but several others on
occassion). **By the way, the fact that YET another proposed moderator,
John Price, has supported an abusive technique to "discourage" my behavior
shows he is not trustworty as a moderator** (see Peter's post quoted
below). This should further show the nature of the group of moderators
seeking control of a newsgroup.

Let me respond to some of the charges in your most recent libelous post
(your most recent post, containing the "charges", is quoted *below my
response*, which is directly below).
First let me respond to just some of the more serious charges by just
saying they are all false: The following charges as enumerated in your
post (quoted below) are all false (and no reasonable evidence has ever
been presented for ANY of them):

#1

#4

#7

#10

#12


The other charges you make (that I do not address above *or below*) are also
false, but they are less significant (and some are a matter of opinion).

-------
Other facts:

I **am** a published author

In Minnesota, a full-time college or university instructor who primarily
teaches developmental psychology OR who works full-time doing research in
this area can call himself a "developmental psychologist." NO license is
required for these positions. These are "exception" areas in MN Law,
where one can use the term "psychologist," as long as he offers no
services in an appleid area of
psychology (i.e. clinical or counsleing psychology) where a license is
required. (We have been through ALL this before and you know it; you are
simply harassing me and indirectly making a false charge top FALSE
assassinate my character. NO ONE approves of this harassment except
disturbed individuals.)

I am a counseling instructor.

I have never threatened anyone.

I have never mail-bombed anyone.

FINAL NOTE: Libel is a crime. You, Peter, are a criminal. I am
forwarding your post and all my information to Customs, along with a
petition to deny you entry into the United States. If you ever come to
the United States you will be detained while the libel charges are filed
against you (if you are lucky, they will let you leave -- *in any case*,
it is doubtful you will be granted entry).

> In article <good_brad-030...@dial010.future.net>, Cognitee
> <good...@hotmail.com> writes
> >Dear John Price:
> > Wouldn't the following (quoted below -- a post from YOU) be considered
> >a "personal attack" by moderators ??
>
> As far as I can see, any poster that...
>
> 1) uses 132 aliases,
> 2) crossposts crap,
> 3) spams crap,
> 4) libels,
> 5) trolls,
> 6) kooks,
> 7) responds to its own posts,
> 8) jumps on and cons naive posters fresh to the group,
> 9) advertises its flame wars in other newsgroups,
> 10) posts sexist and other similarly inflammatory crap about posters in
> an ng, on losing face in academic debate,
> 11) says the A Psychol A are child killers,
> 12) posts the e-mail address of a female opponent in an alt.sex
> group apparently in the hope of drawing fire down on said
> opponent, on losing an argument,
> 13) says it has been "cruel to be kind",
> 14) says that all of its ad hominem, kooking, trolling crap was
> necessary to, achieve unclear aims outlined in rambling, incoherent
> occasionally waspish posts,
> 15) claims to be an 'plublished' author,
> 16) repeatedly posts a massive, rambling manifesto,
> 17) claims to be an *internally* recognised behavioural scientist,
> 18) claims to be an *internally* recognised ethologist,
> 19) claims to be developmental psychologist <licence number, Bard?>,
> 20) claims to be a counselling instructor,
> 21) claims to be an advocate, and head of an advocacy
> organisation, whose accounts, mission statement, and other
> official nomenclature are zilch, zero, nada, nothing,
> indetectable,
>
> [when these are manifest falsehoods],
>
> 22) partially reveals the terra firma address and telephone
> number of a female opponent on losing face in academic debate,
> and threatens more of the same <remember your penis envy
> chat up line?>
> 23) can't even understand the research material it debates,
> 24) descends from debate to shit slinging, whilst pretending to occupy
> the moral high ground,
> 25) claims on numerous occasions that it is going to leave only to
> return <even promising not to let the door slam on its puckering,
> omnipresent, malodorous, butt>,
> 26) threatens those posters with whom it disagrees,
> 27) continually claims that asserting the above points is libel and
> threatens to go to law,
> 28) mail bombs others who disagree with it,
> 29) claims its ISP cannot supply articles from sci.psychology groups
> because big bad John Grohol has magically excluded them <yeah,
> John's father is god, and his uncle is satan, eh?>,
> 30) claims that it cannot see John Grohol's posts because JG has
> magically made them invisible <see above>,
> 31) claims that its posts cannot get through because John Grohol or
> his 'friends in moderation' have deliberately blocked them and
> thus it from the debate <see also 29) and 30)>
> 32) loses its dick in a virtual argument <BTW, have you found
> your penis yet, Bradnee, or did Rene buy you an implant?>
>
> 33- These spaces left intentionally
> 98- blank for others to fill
>
> 99) denies all of the above,
>
> ....any poster in this situation deserves a virtual kicking, and if the
> virtual kicking consists of being made king of the kooks I can only say
> bravo to John Price for advertising the vote - in the same way that you
> advertised your utter crap he is entitled to advertise more sagacious
> items, as he often does.
>
> People have had enough of you and your nutty behaviour. Got it? What is
> more, I hope the whole bloody internet gets its communal ass together
> and votes a resounding seventy million in favour of your kookhood.
>
> A permanent form of kookhood, to be conferred only on you. Ever.
>
> Now shut up, Bradnee, aka pucker-butt, aka Livimone, aka Brad the pus,
> aka Brad the pissmole, aka Psychpers, aka Psycheth, aka JimmyJones, aka
> anonemoss... ...etc., x 132.
>
> >In fact, it is a purely gratuitous
> >personal attack !!! YET ***YOU*** ARE A PROPOSED MODERATOR !!!!!!
>
> AND ***YOU*** ARE A PROPOSED KOOK!!!!!!; both you and John are evidently
> well adjusted to your roles, I know who is the scientist <John> and who
> the kook <you>, and I know who I respect; not you.
>
> Now go and whimper in your sasperilla, or whatever Americans call it. If
> not try a root beer, or a glass of milk, and don't forget to wipe your
> facial fluff clean.
>
> When you've done that, go and bone up on some biological psychology in
> those adult evening classes you go to. Begin with the action potential,
> ions and cations.
>
> Maybe you'll learn a thing or two, if you can restrain the impulse to
> pick your nose or flick pellets at the teacher, shout ABUSE and appear
> disguised as 132 different students, spam the teacher with thousands of
> garbled and incoherent essays <I understand your submissions are below
> undergrad standard, did you know that?>, and generally make a nuisance
> of yourselves. <g>
>
> >In article <5s06f8$d...@login.freenet.columbus.oh.us>,
> >cpea...@freenet.columbus.oh.us (Chuck Pearson) wrote:
> >
> >> John M Price (jmp...@calweb.com) wrote:
> >> : Brad Jesness (Cognitee) has been nominated for Kook of the Month, July
> >> : 1997.
> >> : The ballot can be found in alt.usenet.kooks.
> >> : He is quite deserving, if only on the basis of the number of aliases he's
> >> : had in about a year's time.
> >>
> >> he's deserving, if only on the basis of the degree his posts keep
gumming up
> >> news.groups.
> >>
> >> chuck, looking forward to a visit to a.u.k.
> >> --
> >> fear is a fool who just won't shut up. (thanx to dime store prophets.)
> >> cpea...@freenet.columbus.oh.us
> >
>
> --
> Peter

--
For a critique of the major problems in the counseling/psychotherapy field
AND for SOLUTIONS to these problems, see my web site:

http://www.future.net/~bradj/it.html Major professors in the field have
spoken highly of the paper you shall find at that site.

--
For a critique of the major problems in the counseling/psychotherapy field AND for SOLUTIONS to these problems, see my web site:

http://www.future.net/~bradj/it.html Major professors in the field have spoken highly of the paper you shall find at that site.

Leslie E. Packer, PhD

unread,
Aug 4, 1997, 3:00:00 AM8/4/97
to

[newsgroups trimmed]

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


<snip>

>In Minnesota, a full-time college or university instructor who primarily
>teaches developmental psychology OR who works full-time doing research in
>this area can call himself a "developmental psychologist." NO license is
>required for these positions. These are "exception" areas in MN Law,
>where one can use the term "psychologist," as long as he offers no
>services in an appleid area of
>psychology (i.e. clinical or counsleing psychology) where a license is
>required. (We have been through ALL this before and you know it; you are
>simply harassing me and indirectly making a false charge top FALSE
>assassinate my character. NO ONE approves of this harassment except
>disturbed individuals.)
>
>I am a counseling instructor.
>

Are you claiming that at the time you made that statement you were
employed as a full-time college instructor primarily teaching
developmental psychology?

Are you claiming that you are now employed full-time as a college
instructor?

<rest deleted>

Cognitee

unread,
Aug 5, 1997, 3:00:00 AM8/5/97
to

MS. Packer can kiss it, where the sun don't shine.

In article <sH$bNGAIq...@brentano.demon.co.uk>, Peter
<Pe...@brentano.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> In article <33fc43d0...@news.pipeline.com>, "Leslie E. Packer,
> PhD" <lpa...@pipeline.com> writes


> >[newsgroups trimmed]
> >
> >>good...@hotmail.com (Cognitee) wrote:
> >
> >
> ><snip>
> >

> >>In Minnesota, a full-time college or university instructor who primarily
> >>teaches developmental psychology OR who works full-time doing research in
> >>this area can call himself a "developmental psychologist." NO license is
> >>required for these positions. These are "exception" areas in MN Law,
> >>where one can use the term "psychologist," as long as he offers no
> >>services in an appleid area of
> >>psychology (i.e. clinical or counsleing psychology) where a license is
> >>required. (We have been through ALL this before and you know it; you are
> >>simply harassing me and indirectly making a false charge top FALSE
> >>assassinate my character. NO ONE approves of this harassment except
> >>disturbed individuals.)
> >>
> >>I am a counseling instructor.
> >>

> >Are you claiming that at the time you made that statement you were
> >employed as a full-time college instructor primarily teaching
> >developmental psychology?
> >
> >Are you claiming that you are now employed full-time as a college
> >instructor?
> >
> ><rest deleted>
>

> Just to reiterate; what are the answers to Doctor Packer's questions,
> Mister Jesness?
> --
> Peter

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

Mark D. Morin

unread,
Aug 5, 1997, 3:00:00 AM8/5/97
to

Peter wrote:

> >>I am a counseling instructor.

In the contract that I helped negotiate between a university and the
bargaining unit consisting of instructors, the term "instructor" had a
very specific meaning. It meant non tenure track position. It meant
a terminal nine month contract whose renewal was contingent upon
performance and needs of the department. Contrast the term
"instructor" with the more academic terms assistant, associate, and
full professor.

Our use of this term was consistent with how the term was used at
midwestern universities that I surveyed. Needless to say, I did not
include community colleges in this survey.

So isn't the use of the term "instructor" inconsistent with "full time
employment?"

> >Are you claiming that you are now employed full-time as a college
> >instructor?
> >
> ><rest deleted>
>
> Just to reiterate; what are the answers to Doctor Packer's
> questions,
> Mister Jesness?

Since he does have the MA, shouldn't it be "Master Jesness?"

And since he does such a great job baiting people into useless
discussions, wouldn't Master Baiter be appropriate?

Mark

> --
> Peter

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The God who deals in terror is a bully, and to bend the knee
before him is to be a coward, not a devotee.
--- A. DeMello S.J.

John M Price

unread,
Aug 6, 1997, 3:00:00 AM8/6/97
to

In article <5s8op5$afq$1...@netnews.upenn.edu> Silke-Maria Weineck <wein...@mail1.sas.upenn.edu> wrote:
: Mark D. Morin (mmo...@idt.net) wrote:
[snip]
: : Our use of this term was consistent with how the term was used at

: : midwestern universities that I surveyed. Needless to say, I did not
: : include community colleges in this survey.

: : So isn't the use of the term "instructor" inconsistent with "full time
: : employment?"

: No, Mark, it's not. You can be a full-time instructor at lots of colleges
: and universities; as a matter of fact, there are more and more such
: positions as schools try to save money and benefit packages. I also
: wouldn't blame anybody who "instructs" at several colleges for calling
: him/herself "full-time employed" -- I know several such people, and they
: are rather full-and-a-half-time employed (and about a quarter as well
: paid).

Absolutely correct. The contract with Los Rios, for instance, has a
section that states the faculty will consist of 75% full time people.
Last count I saw, of 800 positions, 300 were full time. The out is
budgetary ability, which the district always claims is present. And there
is a no strike clause as well.

In the Yuba College district, they actually voted to decrease part time
pay rates to give a raise to the full time faculty.

Finally, in order to decrease their cost of health care after the third
semester, the FTEs are maintained such that you will never get more than
two lecture courses at any district.

Not very polite, from where I sit. If you have the needs for all these
faculty, hire more full time!

--
John M. Price, PhD jmp...@calweb.com
Life: Chemistry, but with feeling! | PGP Key on request or by finger!
Email responses to my Usenet articles will be posted at my discretion.
Atheist# 683

Nothing illustrates the social kinship of America and the late, great
Roman Empire better than the all-you-can-eat buffet. The Romans called
their buffet an orgy and threw in sex and a vomit trough. Hopefully we too
will reach this pinnacle someday.
- Greg Beets & Buzz Moran 'Hey! Hey! Buffet!'


Peter

unread,
Aug 6, 1997, 3:00:00 AM8/6/97
to

In article <good_brad-050...@dial004.future.net>, Cognitee
<good...@hotmail.com> writes

>MS. Packer can kiss it, where the sun don't shine.

That's *Doctor Packer* to you, young Master Bardley-Sewage-Jesness.

>In article <sH$bNGAIq...@brentano.demon.co.uk>, Peter
><Pe...@brentano.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> In article <33fc43d0...@news.pipeline.com>, "Leslie E. Packer,
>> PhD" <lpa...@pipeline.com> writes
>> >[newsgroups trimmed]
>> >
>> >>good...@hotmail.com (Cognitee) wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> ><snip>
>> >

>> >>In Minnesota, a full-time college or university instructor who primarily
>> >>teaches developmental psychology OR who works full-time doing research in
>> >>this area can call himself a "developmental psychologist."

<snip>

>> >>I am a counseling instructor.
>> >>

>> >Are you claiming that at the time you made that statement you were
>> >employed as a full-time college instructor primarily teaching
>> >developmental psychology?
>> >

>> >Are you claiming that you are now employed full-time as a college
>> >instructor?
>> >
>> ><rest deleted>
>>
>> Just to reiterate; what are the answers to Doctor Packer's questions,
>> Mister Jesness?

Again, will you please answer up, or are you too busy looking for broken
down apple cores?

Enquiring minds wish to know.
--
Peter

Peter

unread,
Aug 6, 1997, 3:00:00 AM8/6/97
to

In article <good_brad-030...@ts003d04.min-mn.concentric.net>,
Cognitee <good...@hotmail.com> writes

>Dear Peter:
> You have won against me. I shall not remain in this group long. I
>made a fatal error. I did not remain anonymous.

The Brad-bird - a failed predator?

Nesting behaviours:

None worth speaking of. The Brad-bird appears to float from newsgroup
to newsgroup, announcing its arrival with the typographical equivalent
of grunting and barking. Often it will initiate a thread speaking as
though the argument placed in it is already accepted as valid, or at
least acknowledged as meriting debate. This is a wandering aengus.

Grooming behaviours:

Occasionally, when it thinks that it sees an ally-in-the-making, the
Brad-bird will initiate grooming behaviours. The probability of such
an event taking place is less than .0000000001, and this means that a
cascade of highly significant 'many-and-all-potentials' is likely to
follow. Frequently the target of its affections will support it but
only in a manner indicating a low opinion of the Brad-bird, if not
contempt. In the ensuing melee further division, or meiosis, will
occur within the group. It is unsurprising that grooming behaviours of
this sort have frequently been labelled 'divide and rule' behaviours
(Sigismund Lorenz, 1953, p. 200-231).

Feeding behaviours:

The Brad-bird would like to feed on therapists. However, it seems to
find them largely indigestible. Moreover, the 'meal' usually turns and
bites off sizeable portions from its would be-predator. This usually
elicits distracting behaviours (q.v.).

Distracting behaviours:

These are 'many and varied', but fall under two main sub-categories;

1. The Parting (or Pathan) Shot

This significant category can be elicited by means of tearing into the
argument of this would-be predator, and reducing it to rubble; the
Brad-bird will respond by puffing out its chest, referring to its
critics as 'hacks' and 'quacks', and pointing to its as yet unverified
status, qualifications and achievements.

The Brad-bird subsequently departs to another thread, overlooking
ignominious defeat.

N.B. During a critical stage of its early development the Brad-bird
used a web browser to read news. Accordingly its central nervous
system has been sensitised in a manner that gives rise to strange
epiphenomenal beliefs, such as; its image of a 'newsgroup' does not
appear to equate to that of 'place', whereas it appears to endow this
status on the concept 'thread'.

A corollary stemming from the early sensitisation process is that the
Brad-bird frequently follows the Web-God and ruler of usenet, John
Grohol, expressing deeply rooted and paranoid beliefs. It is feared
that, since such sensitisation is laid down at a fundamental level of
neurobiology, change is not possible. Indeed, this very state of being
is of itself indicative not of unwillingness to change <although the
possibility must be entertained> but of ***INABILITY*** to change. The
prognosis is not good.

2. The 'broken wing'

This is normally presented when the Brad-bird is confronted by a
poster with statements normally considered to be incompatible with
someone of the status claimed by the Brad-bird (i.e., a "Professor", a
"counselling instructor"). Such statements include sexist postings to
news, threats to post personal information relating to address and
telephone number to news and grandiose claims to Professorial status.
When these items are disclosed in public the Brad-bird will claim that
'some have collected only the worst of my posts and placed them here'
(meaning s.p.p.).

Should posters to the ng continue to prosecute a vigorous campaign of
action, the Brad-bird will claim that it is now "dickless". It has
been speculated that statements concerning loss of reproductive
equipment are to be taken both literally and most symbolically:

"I have lost my virtual reproductive equipment and will no
longer be able to contaminate the newsgroup's meme-pool"

"In destroying my arguments you have symbolically destroyed
my reproductive equipment. Please leave this organless
illegitimate to its chosen task of burbling and spouting
nonsense."

"I now recognise that your organ truly is larger than mine.
This has been a most catastrophic shock to me, and I now
wish to be left in peace to play with my denial."

"As you have defeated me totally I will now trail my broken
wing <q.v.> so that 'all can see'. With time I will return,
using a new identity, and continue to plague you with my
excrescence and other charming manners.

This examination of Bard's fixed action patterns began last year and
has since gathered dust on my H/D. All additions and suggestions for
improvement gratefully received.

For example, I am aware that we are witnessing an important spectacle
from the perspective of evolutionary biology. Not only is the
Brad-bird incapable of symbolic-memic reproduction; it is also an
evolutionary failure, inasmuch that it has failed to fertilise the
soil, engages in self-destructive acts, and <by over use of stotting>
has habituated related homo sapient creatures.

It is in addtion fair to say that it has failed to keep and satisfy a
longer term partner, and that there will be no virtual issue from its
virtual relationships, the partners in which are usually attacked.
Indeed, a newly emerging species can only survive in the presence of
an adequate diet and a plentiful supply of partners of the opposite
sex.

The Brad-bird's proclivities for buggery and anal kissing and its
dislike of the opposite sex all rule its survival out, as do its
emergence in an environment lacking in appropriate nutrition suited to
its inadequate digestive tract <not to be mistaken for "tract" in the
context of "tact", a reference to insufficient stalking skills.>

Thus we are privileged to witness the appearance and disappearance of
a <potentially> new species of creature, a rare and infrequent
occurrence.

...until the next rebirth.
--
Peter
In article <an571479-030...@dial001.future.net>, NotASafePlace
<an57...@anon.penet.fi> writes
>I have had my worst posts FROM other newsgroups gathered up and
>presented here.

Peter

unread,
Aug 7, 1997, 3:00:00 AM8/7/97
to

In article <good_brad-070...@ts005d02.min-mn.concentric.net>,
Cognitee <good...@hotmail.com> writes
>P.S. Will everyone please note that Peter Hood, mental health
>professional has subscribed to a newsgroup called alt.[my
>name].die.die.die

How would you know? >:->

Furthermore, how _dare_ you in a free usenet presume to imply that it is
inappropriate for an individual to subscribe to any newsgroup they so
choose?

Just _who_ do you think you _are_? Well? Answer that, and stop squealing
like a stuck pig.

>How appropriate is this??

Very, in the light of your behaviour. Your behaviour merits an
appropriate debating forum. Did you D/L the mime enclosures of your long
chat with yourself? Is that what hurt you so? The sight of them among
the first posts in an NG devoted to yourself?

>The credibility of this individual in the newsgroups, both for his
>behaviour and his improprieties should be ZERO.

I personally don't care. My credibility is irrelevant, although I have
to say I have yet to see anything of intellectual content emitted from
you, anything that would enable me to say "now, there is a credible
individual, he as an intellectual point to make".

In fact, what I see makes me thing "just what is this individual like in
RL? How can anyone over such a long period consistently abuse clients,
patients, scientists and therapists... ...so unremittingly, so
obscenely, and for no good reason other than he apparently has a nasty
personality and a chip on his shoulder?":

-"-
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.
-"-

In article <good_brad-070...@dial010.future.net>, Cognitee
<good...@hotmail.com> writes
>P.S. Why don't you SAY what you want to say AND THEN TRY TO SUPPORT IT.
>OTHERWISE, SHUT THE **** UP !!!!!!
-"-

You have not even the credibility of a clump of sod. You are an
insightless abuser. You have consistently abused people in various
newsgroups over 2.5 years, and to confirm your obstinate pleasure you
say:

-"-

In article <good_brad-040...@ts003d10.min-mn.concentric.net>,
Cognitee <good...@hotmail.com> writes
>I stand by all my statements in the newsgroup, proudly. Please restrict
>your comments to those

-"-

Yes, Brad. Be proud if you wish, but remember, you have been recorded
for everyone to see.

>I am sure it is and I
>have that comfort !!

You'll have no comfort with an abusive history such as yours. Think on
that. You discredited yourself a long, long, long time ago.

>All should now consider any "information" provided
>by him worthless unless thorough, unambiguous proof is presented.

"Should"? On *what* authority, pray? You offer none, you merely hope to
reduce the power that replaying your obscene filth in news has. SOS, you
fail to offer any proof, any evidence, anything that would justify your
assertions. You are not merely a lousy scientist, you are lousy at
debate.

You obviously hope that your disgusting, nauseous insults - particularly
those of late where you, for example, refer to academics as "scumbags",
"child killers" and "a*** h****" - will be forgotten; you hope, with a
tap of the keyboard, to expunge your history. A history that I have kept
on my H/D.

Your hope and faith are indeed misplaced; you are recorded, you are
archived by me; the things that you have said cannot be redeemed by mere
bluster and insult; the only way to redeem yourself is to apologise and
to reform.

Try it.

>P.P.S. All should know that Peter is in the "inner circle" with the
>proposed "moderators" of a NEW **proposed** **SCIENCE** (sci.)
>newsgroup.

No way. You are dreaming. There is no public or private link between us.
None at all. I suggest you find the proof for this assertion, or shall I
_sue you_?

>He was once proposed to be one of the moderators.

Nominated as a candidate. Like you I stood down. Unlike you I remained
there. You kept coming back, drawn like a moth to candle.

>A number of
>the present proposed moderation officers show great irrationality and/or
>misconduct. Will you let them control a **sci.** newsgroup, without any
>accountability and just using their personal "discretions" on what is
>"off-topic" OR a "personal attack." (There are no reasonable definitions
>in the charter and NO real accountability for what THEY do. ALL IS BEHIND
>CLOSED DOORS.)

You make illogical leap after illogical leap. You reveal yourself to be
replete with venom, as ever.

>I say leave the moderation people where they belong.

Your iterations are not worth an exhalation in sub zero temperatures.

You have demonstrated again and again that you are the most venal,
unethical, lying, vituperous, venomous, insulting, unempathic, brutal,
ill-educated, barbarous, unqualified, unable to listen, unable to argue,
inflexible, uncaring, and unpleasant poster this side of the galaxy.

Your iterations rarely contain anything of sense and value, rarely
contain anything original, and are rarely put together in a manner
comprehensible. How you hope to be perceived as anything other than an
uncouth, offensive and aggressive lout eludes me.

>THEY made THEIR OWN
>bed, they should lie in it. I MIGHT ADD THAT THEY COULD ALSO **CHANGE
>THEIR OWN BED** (AND DON'T NEED A NEW ONE). (carrying the metaphor to the
>extreme)

And a silly, fallacious, ill constructed metaphor it was. The point is
neither to change a bed nor even the sheets; the point is to wash before
lying on them. You, however, have obviously not the wherewithal to rinse
your mouth with the carbolic that your social bad breath cries out for,
or you would have remedied the situation 29 months ago, when first you
put pink digits to keyboard.

>VOTE **** NO **** on the CFV (in sci.psychology.psychotherapy and elsewhere)

Ah. Now you show your colours more accurately. I will not allow you to
shout and abuse in my home; others will not allow you to shout and abuse
in their debating societies; still others do not want you to shout at
and abuse them in news.

Hence you wish to bleat about your first amendment rights, as you wish
to shout and abuse your captive audience; the first amendment is an
Amero-centric matter, since usenet is not America. It is the world.

I will be away for up to five days, so don't take my silence as tacit
assent to your comments. It is not; my insurer tells me that the PCMCIA
card in my replacement lap-top was not a part of the deal, hence my
silence.

Good night.
--
Peter
In article <4v0niu$b...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, Cognitee
<cogn...@aol.com> writes
>Dear Readers,
> I only apologize that I have been such a bad representative for the
>great causes I have put forward here. -- b jesness

And what a bad representative you have been.

Cognitee

unread,
Aug 7, 1997, 3:00:00 AM8/7/97
to

You have no reason to know credentials; I am providing you no service.
You are a phoney Leslie. A sicko phoney. Please sh** or get off the pot.

In article <33fd6838...@news.pipeline.com>, lpa...@pipeline.com wrote:

> >good...@hotmail.com (Cognitee) wrote:
>
> >Demand all you want.
>
> Read more carefully. I said you were being "asked to give." I said
> that YOU had "demanded" of others what you have repeatedly been asked
> to provide for yourself.
>
> >You have no rights
>
> Wrong.
>
> > NOR any good purpose
>
> Wrong again.
>
> >NOR any
> >need. I will give thugs nothing.
> >
> Well, I may need them for what I am thinking of doing. Then again, I
> may not. IAE, it is your responsibility to provide them since you
> stated that professionals were required to be forthcoming about their
> professional credentials.
>
> >In article <33fb19f0...@news.pipeline.com>, lpa...@pipeline.com wrote:
> >
> >> >good...@hotmail.com (Cognitee) wrote:
> >>
> >> >I SHALL NOT PROVIDE THIS NEWSGROUP WITH A SHREAD MORE PERSONAL INFORMATION
> >> >ABOUT ME.
> >>
> >> It is professional information you are being asked to give. The same
> >> kind of professional information you have DEMANDED of others. You
> >> have made claims about your credentials and it is legitimate to
> >> ask/expect you to provide some verifiable backing for them.
> >>
> >> <snip of your attempt to distract>
> >>
> >> Here are the relevant parts of the past post where you have made
> >> claims that you were asked about:
> >> [lp]
> >> >> We're still waiting for your substantive answers to the questions:
> >> >>
> >> >> You said:
> >>
> >> [bj]


> >> >> >> >>In Minnesota, a full-time college or university instructor who
> >primarily
> >> >> >> >>teaches developmental psychology OR who works full-time doing
> >research in
> >> >> >> >>this area can call himself a "developmental psychologist." NO
> >license is
> >> >> >> >>required for these positions. These are "exception" areas in
MN Law,
> >> >> >> >>where one can use the term "psychologist," as long as he offers no
> >> >> >> >>services in an appleid area of
> >> >> >> >>psychology (i.e. clinical or counsleing psychology) where a
license is
> >> >> >> >>required. (We have been through ALL this before and you know
> >it; you are
> >> >> >> >>simply harassing me and indirectly making a false charge top FALSE
> >> >> >> >>assassinate my character. NO ONE approves of this harassment
except
> >> >> >> >>disturbed individuals.)
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>I am a counseling instructor.
> >> >> >> >>

> >> >> And I asked you:


> >> >>
> >> >> >> >Are you claiming that at the time you made that statement you were
> >> >> >> >employed as a full-time college instructor primarily teaching
> >> >> >> >developmental psychology?
> >> >> >> >

> >> What's your answer, Brad?


> >>
> >> >> >> >Are you claiming that you are now employed full-time as a college
> >> >> >> >instructor?
> >> >> >> >

> >> What's your answer, Brad?
> >>
> >> >> >> ><rest deleted>
> >> >>
> >> >> And Peter reminded you:


> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Just to reiterate; what are the answers to Doctor Packer's questions,
> >> >> >> Mister Jesness?

> >> >> >> --
> >> >> >> Peter
> >> >>
> >> >> And Joe Parsons has also asked you. You have a professional
> >> >> obligation to clarify your credentials. I can quote you on this from
> >> >> the archives, if you'd like, about how since you have made a claim,
> >> >> you have to provide more information. That's what you said.
> >> >>
> >> >> Go ahead, Mr. Jesness. The whole world is watching.
> >>
> >> And still is.

--

Peter

unread,
Aug 7, 1997, 3:00:00 AM8/7/97
to

In article <good_brad-070...@ts005d02.min-mn.concentric.net>,
Cognitee <good...@hotmail.com> writes
>Demand all you want. You have no rights NOR any good purpose NOR any

>need. I will give thugs nothing.

You have nothing to hide and nothing to show. You thus make a pretence
of non co-operation, to cover your lack of substance.

Cognitee

unread,
Aug 7, 1997, 3:00:00 AM8/7/97
to

Demand all you want. You have no rights NOR any good purpose NOR any
need. I will give thugs nothing.

In article <33fb19f0...@news.pipeline.com>, lpa...@pipeline.com wrote:

> >good...@hotmail.com (Cognitee) wrote:
>
> >I SHALL NOT PROVIDE THIS NEWSGROUP WITH A SHREAD MORE PERSONAL INFORMATION
> >ABOUT ME.
>
> It is professional information you are being asked to give. The same
> kind of professional information you have DEMANDED of others. You
> have made claims about your credentials and it is legitimate to
> ask/expect you to provide some verifiable backing for them.
>
> <snip of your attempt to distract>
>
> Here are the relevant parts of the past post where you have made
> claims that you were asked about:
> [lp]
> >> We're still waiting for your substantive answers to the questions:
> >>
> >> You said:
>
> [bj]

> >> >> >>In Minnesota, a full-time college or university instructor who
primarily
> >> >> >>teaches developmental psychology OR who works full-time doing
research in
> >> >> >>this area can call himself a "developmental psychologist." NO
license is
> >> >> >>required for these positions. These are "exception" areas in MN Law,
> >> >> >>where one can use the term "psychologist," as long as he offers no
> >> >> >>services in an appleid area of
> >> >> >>psychology (i.e. clinical or counsleing psychology) where a license is
> >> >> >>required. (We have been through ALL this before and you know
it; you are
> >> >> >>simply harassing me and indirectly making a false charge top FALSE
> >> >> >>assassinate my character. NO ONE approves of this harassment except
> >> >> >>disturbed individuals.)
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>I am a counseling instructor.
> >> >> >>

> >> And I asked you:
> >>
> >> >> >Are you claiming that at the time you made that statement you were
> >> >> >employed as a full-time college instructor primarily teaching
> >> >> >developmental psychology?
> >> >> >
> What's your answer, Brad?
>
> >> >> >Are you claiming that you are now employed full-time as a college
> >> >> >instructor?
> >> >> >
> What's your answer, Brad?
>
> >> >> ><rest deleted>
> >>
> >> And Peter reminded you:
> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Just to reiterate; what are the answers to Doctor Packer's questions,
> >> >> Mister Jesness?
> >> >> --
> >> >> Peter
> >>
> >> And Joe Parsons has also asked you. You have a professional
> >> obligation to clarify your credentials. I can quote you on this from
> >> the archives, if you'd like, about how since you have made a claim,
> >> you have to provide more information. That's what you said.
> >>
> >> Go ahead, Mr. Jesness. The whole world is watching.
>
> And still is.

--

Cognitee

unread,
Aug 7, 1997, 3:00:00 AM8/7/97
to

I SHALL NOT PROVIDE THIS NEWSGROUP WITH A SHREAD MORE PERSONAL INFORMATION
ABOUT ME. GIVEN THE INAPPROPRIATE PERSONAL ABUSES AND HARASSMENT I HAVE
SUFFERED (which I have detailed at length in the past -- and only SOME of
which has been apparent recently), I AM VERY SORRY I EVER CAME OUT OF
ANONYMITY, WHICH I DID OVE 2 YEARS AND 3 MONTHS AGO. BY THE WAY: Can
anyone tell me who started the newsgroup alt.brad.jesness.die.die.die ?
How can I find evidence of who may have started it ? $25 reward for
evidence what ISP service the person who started this newsgroup uses.

I hope it is clear to all that I am being persecuted by the "moderation
people." This very sort of person wants to control and censor a
newsgroup. Do not let them. It could not end up a fair "sci." newsgroup
and the thugs deserve no better than to remain with us here. They have no
real need to be anywhere else. Don't they have enough people on there
side to handle it here ?? They just want to abuse "discretions" behind
closed doors so they LOOK BETTER (and not like the thugs they are).
Also, it will be less apparent, but MORE true, that it will be a sanitized
newsgroup !!!


In article <3416e898...@news.pipeline.com>, lpa...@pipeline.com wrote:

> >good...@hotmail.com (Cognitee) expressed his sexual fantasies yet
again when he abused his keyboard:


>
> >MS. Packer can kiss it, where the sun don't shine.
> >

> We're still waiting for your substantive answers to the questions:
>
> You said:

> >> >>In Minnesota, a full-time college or university instructor who primarily
> >> >>teaches developmental psychology OR who works full-time doing research in
> >> >>this area can call himself a "developmental psychologist." NO license is
> >> >>required for these positions. These are "exception" areas in MN Law,
> >> >>where one can use the term "psychologist," as long as he offers no
> >> >>services in an appleid area of
> >> >>psychology (i.e. clinical or counsleing psychology) where a license is
> >> >>required. (We have been through ALL this before and you know it; you are
> >> >>simply harassing me and indirectly making a false charge top FALSE
> >> >>assassinate my character. NO ONE approves of this harassment except
> >> >>disturbed individuals.)
> >> >>
> >> >>I am a counseling instructor.
> >> >>

> And I asked you:
>
> >> >Are you claiming that at the time you made that statement you were
> >> >employed as a full-time college instructor primarily teaching
> >> >developmental psychology?
> >> >

> >> >Are you claiming that you are now employed full-time as a college
> >> >instructor?
> >> >

> >> ><rest deleted>
>
> And Peter reminded you:
>
> >>
> >> Just to reiterate; what are the answers to Doctor Packer's questions,
> >> Mister Jesness?
> >> --
> >> Peter
>
> And Joe Parsons has also asked you. You have a professional
> obligation to clarify your credentials. I can quote you on this from
> the archives, if you'd like, about how since you have made a claim,
> you have to provide more information. That's what you said.
>
> Go ahead, Mr. Jesness. The whole world is watching.

--

Peter

unread,
Aug 7, 1997, 3:00:00 AM8/7/97
to

Had to trim the newgroups, eh?

Coward.

In article <good_brad-070...@ts005d02.min-mn.concentric.net>,
Cognitee <good...@hotmail.com> writes

>Here (quoted below) is a message from Peter Hood, a mental health
>professional. He is obviously in a psychotic rage.

In so saying you reveal your ineptitude in matters psychiatric. Not only
that, you reveal your ignorance WRT diagnostic procedures.

I pity any client
>such a disturbed mental health professional may have !! He is in a
>psychotic rage,

No longer "obviously in a psychotic rage" but "in a psychotic rage". You
leap from unrelated logical plank to unrelated logical plank in the
manner of a klipspringer on the side of a mountain. Except that you are
desperate to sway people to conform to your flailing, hate-filled and
obscene manner of "exchange". That is to say, you wish to trade
obscenities.

possibly because his sanitized new newsgroup may well not
>come to pass OR he is just too out-of-control to maintain decorum for 6
>more days !!! He originally had responses to the post (quoted below) set
>up to go to only a kooks newsgroup AND to a newsgroup set up to abuse me.

Whereas you, of course, have abused NO ONE?

>No doubt the special newsgroup was set up by pro-moderation people; this
>is ironic, because they make false claims about how they are abused, but
>in fact repeatedly abuse me !!!

Let's have a look at a single item of abusive lying:

-"-
In article <good_brad-040...@ts003d10.min-mn.concentric.net>,

Cognitee <good...@hotmail.com> scrawled, using his bluntest, most
therapeutic,
libellous and inhumane jackhammer
> YOU JUST WORSHIP DEGREES, LESLIE, SO YOU CAN WORSHIP YOURSELF. Your
>blanket statements are in fact extrordinarily ignorant, unscientific, and
>irresponsible.
>CHILD KILLER !!!
-"-

I hope you can afford the bill. I have kept all of your abuse of me, and
of others; if I so much as hear a legal squeak out of you, I promise you
that you will not be able to afford an internet account, ever again.

Do you understand this?

>This just shows the abuse the
>pro-"moderation" people have to resort to if they don't have the special
>"protection" they seek through "moderation."

You forgot; I am unsubscribing quite soon, and remain here only to
ensure the truth about _you_ is told, abuser.

They want the "special"
>newsgroup, so everything will be stuff they can handle without going
>psychotic (as illustrated in the post quoted below).

More klipspringerisms; I will not be here; moreover, do not equate
"they" with "I", these are entirely separate categories, or have you yet
to develop that facility enabling people discriminate between other and
other?

They need a special
>controlled "cocoon" to protect them from **ANYTHING** (including
>**VIEWS**) that upset them.

Others will dissect the scientific basis of the therapies, regardless of
your presence. Those who will are likely to do so with greater
intellectual skill, grace and dignity than you have ever in your history
of posting done.

All charges that I have ever abused ANYONE
>ARE FALSE

See above for some samples, which cannot be denied.

(or based on gross exaggerations and misrepresentation). In
>contrast, evidence that I am abused mounts daily.

Twit. The evidence is available for anyone who cares to read; merely
denying this will not make it go away.

>By the way, could anyone provide me with any information about this Peter
>Hood. I am seeking to take legal actions against him. I have heard that
>his father (whose last name was presumably also Hood) was famous, this may
>help me pin down this particular Peter Hood.

If you are interested, you may trace my family through a large manor
with a 12th century peel tower in Cumbria, the town is Cockermouth. In
addition they once owned most of Cammel-Laird shipbuilders, four oil
tankers and an excessively large collection of art and antique
furniture.

There, that should help you.

>$20 for exact information on
>Peter Hood (enough info. to contact him). (Peter, you don't get the money
>if you supply the information -- but a coward like you wouldn't anyway.)

LOL. ROTFL ROFLMAO. Twenty dollars? That is around ten pounds, and
will not even buy a decent night out. In England.

>I will be sorry for taking action against Peter,

You most certainly will, for I will provide so much evidence of your
abuse that you will have the same lack of credibility in court that you
have in news, and I will institute a counter action and cause tears to
come to your eyes.

since he is obviously
>insane.

Not simply diagnosing without a licence, but showing yourself to be an
inept fool?

But he repeatedly abuses me and also upon frequent occassion
>libels with false charges (some of which he could not possibly have
>evidence for

For which items would you like proof? Ask and I will answer. Please also
give me the e-mail address of your solicitor, so that I may provide
her/him with these details.

-- showing the character of this individual !!)

Anyone who can write such trash is clearly going to be ignored in
England, I can tell you that for sure.

Speak to your solicitor for confirmation.

Good night.
--
Peter
On 4 Sep 1996, Cognitee wrote:
>Too bad the bugger, Peter, is likely BROKE (in more ways than one).
>I'd sue him otherwise. You are

>In article <6he+UaAD...@brentano.demon.co.uk>, Peter
><Pe...@brentano.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> In article <good_brad-270...@ts008d10.min-mn.concentric.net>,
>> Cognitee <good...@hotmail.com> writes
>> >Dear Readers,
>> > Out of regard for the readership of this newsgroup, I shall no longer
>> >respond to Peter or Leslie.
>>
>> You have again defaulted. You emerged from the sewage that constitutes
>> your home, glistening and dripping with brown venality, poison,
>> innuendo, abuse generated by the stem which constitutes your entire,
>> vitriolic and vituperative personality.
>>
>> The personality that enables you to refer to _people_ as "retards",
>> "morons", as "child killers", and which renders you entirely unfit not
>> simply to help other people overcome the pain they experience, but also
>> to preach to those more wise than you and trained to a higher standard
>> of excellence in both the sciences and the therapies.
>>
>> You puffed up, presumptive and odious creature. How could you have the
>> barefaced cheek to return to spp so soon after your recent and possibly
>> worst crime against humanity?
>>
>> Have you no sense of shame, or are you simply the nastiest individual on
>> usenet?
>>
>> I would have thought it clear by now that twisted, nasty, unpleasant and
>> defammatory posters such as yourself are unlikely to ever elicit
>> pleasant responses for as long as your posts reflect your odious, over
>> weaning, obnoxious and thoroughly underhand, ill educated, snarling,
>> self-serving, lying self.
>>
>> The fact that you are able to return to spp, having fallen back into the
>> sewage with such force that you broke the brickwork compartmentalising
>> your disgusting underworld away from the rest of us, indicates to me
>> that you are completely unconscious of the sins of which you are guilty;
>> clearly, you are without self image, and without the ability to reflect
>> on the effects your posts have on other people.
>>
>> As far as I can see, the only things that will so much as dent the
>> armour-plate thick skin surrounding your inadequate centre of operations
>> <or central nervous system, such as it is> will be the loss of your
>> audience, coupled with the only appropriate award that I am aware of
>> that is appropriate to such vermin as yourself; KoTM.
>>
>> You haven't even offered to apologise to Doctor Packer and her children;
>> you haven't even apologised to those whom you would like to call your
>> fellow professionals for disgracing the helping professions; you haven't
>> even apologised to those in spp whom you have for over two years
>> terrorised and abused, with the exception last year of Richard Ebling
>> whom you accused of dirty tricks in the CFV.
>>
>> Indeed, you have yet to apologise to the volunteer votetakers whose life
>> you made so miserable last year, and seem completely unconscious and
>> unreflexive when it comes to considering your crimes against other
>> people, including those who use the net to seek help.
>>
>> There is probably no one on usenet that you have not abused. There are
>> probably few in RL that you have not abused, from what I see. You fill
>> me with disgust, and I will continue to highlight the disgusting nature
>> of your behaviour until after the vote.
>>
>> Thereafter I may stick around to see if you continue, but am unlikely to
>> remain for more than a week.
>>
>> >(I shall examine the NATURE of Leslie's posts
>> >by skimming to see what she is doing, so a certain "consequence" can be
>> >inflicted on her "as needed". She tries to train me like a dog;
>>
>> Yet you do not respond, which indicates to me that dogs are more
>> intelligent. You do not condition well, and probably were not able to
>> respond to the schedules of reinforcement that parents employ in shaping
>> the developing personality of a child. I would agree with Eysenck WRT
>> you, Bard.
>>
>> >I only
>> >think it appropriate to communicate back in the same language
>>
>> That is another disgusting lie. Doctor Packer suffered your obloquy for
>> a long time and people occasionally remonstrated with her for her
>> responses. The same has applied to me.
>>
>> However, your recent excrescent behaviour shows you for precisely what
>> you are. You should be persona non grata among the ISPs of the USA. You
>> should be contained in your own underworld, never to see the light of
>> day.
>>
>> >-- this
>> >should involve only one post a day and NOT be a grave inconvenience to
>> >newsreaders.
>>
>> Again you lie.
>>
>> >Who knows, in Leslie's case, this may actually be her
>> >language and the only language she understands. There is no doubt in my
>> >mind that the abusive Leslie Packer likely abuses her power with others
>> >and likely treats her disabled clients like dogs too.
>>
>> Your characterisation again reveals you for what you are, you disgusting
>> and nauseating individual.
>>
>> >I wish someone
>> >would look into this. It seem unlikely a person could be as abusive as
>> >Leslie is and NOT abuse power with vulnerable people.)
>>
>> This from you again merits passing through the gag reflex, to shower you
>> with a nutritious technicolour yawn. You beggar belief.
>>
>> <snip>
>> > And, don't forget. Who the hell really cares about "brad" anyway !!
>>
>> You mean, "Who the hell does Bard care about?"
>>
>> In article <good_brad-070...@ts010d21.min-mn.concentric.net>,
>> Cognitee <good...@hotmail.com> writes
>> > This issue is alive and well. It is inappropriate to try to kill it
>> >(as Stein and Lambert, Larry Lyons, and the APA have tried to do).
>> >Clinical researchers and the APA are grossly negligent. They are likely
>> >so self-serving and presumptous that people are dying becauuse of their
>> >negligence. CHILD KILLERS !!!!!!!!
>>
>> Exhulting in your excrescence again, or simply acting as a stimulant to
>> people wishing for a moderated forum?
>>
>>
>> In article <good_brad-070...@ts010d21.min-mn.concentric.net>,
>> Cognitee <good...@hotmail.com> writes
>> >P.S. LESLIE,
>> > I SHALL NEVER SPECIFICALLY BRING UP STRUPP AND HADLEY AGAIN (it
>> >obviously confuses you). I don't need to. The data is lacking (PERIOD).
>> >You're one dumb (biased, irrational) bonehead, Leslie. We have been
>> >through ALL this before !!!!!!!
>>
>> You did not understand a thing, despite seeing your arguments torn to
>> pieces. Instead you sank back into your effluvial home, breathed deeply,
>> shot to the surface and exhaled into spp.
>>
>> In article <good_brad-070...@ts010d21.min-mn.concentric.net>,
>> Cognitee <good...@hotmail.com> writes


>> >I SHALL NOT PROVIDE THIS NEWSGROUP WITH A SHREAD MORE PERSONAL INFORMATION
>> >ABOUT ME. GIVEN THE INAPPROPRIATE PERSONAL ABUSES AND HARASSMENT I HAVE
>> >SUFFERED (which I have detailed at length in the past -- and only SOME of
>> >which has been apparent recently), I AM VERY SORRY I EVER CAME OUT OF
>> >ANONYMITY, WHICH I DID OVE 2 YEARS AND 3 MONTHS AGO. BY THE WAY: Can
>> >anyone tell me who started the newsgroup alt.brad.jesness.die.die.die ?
>>

>> ROFLMAO! I have subscribed! <"Laughing with pride">


>>
>> >How can I find evidence of who may have started it ? $25 reward for
>> >evidence what ISP service the person who started this newsgroup uses.
>>

>> I suspect that if you offered 25 million dollars you would not get a
>> result.


>>
>> >I hope it is clear to all that I am being persecuted by the "moderation
>> >people." This very sort of person wants to control and censor a
>> >newsgroup. Do not let them. It could not end up a fair "sci." newsgroup
>> >and the thugs deserve no better than to remain with us here. They have no
>> >real need to be anywhere else. Don't they have enough people on there
>> >side to handle it here ?? They just want to abuse "discretions" behind
>> >closed doors so they LOOK BETTER (and not like the thugs they are).
>> >Also, it will be less apparent, but MORE true, that it will be a sanitized
>> >newsgroup !!!
>>

>> There will be no thuggery if sppm passes, you will not be allowed that
>> luxury; OTOH, there will also be an absence of buggery, since such posts
>> will not pass through the hands of the moderators into news unless the
>> term is used in the appropriate manner and context - pretty unlikely,
>> but I'll allow for the possibility.
>>
>> In article <good_brad-070...@ts010d21.min-mn.concentric.net>,
>> Cognitee <good...@hotmail.com> writes
>> >Dear Peter,
>> > Those remarks about Stein and Lambert are not at all gratuitous. They
>> >are an accurate assessment, backed by specifics. I clearly displayed how
>> >they misrepresented their study and how they made unwarranted
>> >conclusions. I clearly cited details of the study. Their behavior was
>> >grossly unethical and contemptable. They are a perfect example of
>> >researchers who, if they tried to get me kicked out of the APA, **THEY*
>> >INSTEAD would be kicked out !!!
>>
>> You are willing to characterise them as scumbags in a meeting of the
>> society of which you are an associate member <the APA> and of which
>> Stein and Lambert are doubtless full members?
>>
>> You are so unconscious of yourself. This is grist to the mill, or should
>> I say excrement to the purification plant. I do hope that the APA invite
>> you to the disciplinary hearing in which you are kicked out, the APS
>> too.
>>
>> Now answer the questions below;
>>
>> what are your qualifications in science and the therapies;
>>
>> are you employed as an instructor of counselling, if so prove it;
>>
>> what are the details of your advocacy organisation;
>>
>> cite the EXACT details of your published articles, with the exception of
>> your letter to an editor;
>>
>> describe your client base;
>>
>> describe the setting and model in which you practice counselling;
>>
>> what are the exact details of the adult education course you attend at
>> UMN?
>>
>> Answer, or be characterised as an outright liar.
>> --
>> Peter
>> In article <good_brad-270...@ts008d10.min-mn.concentric.net>,
>> Cognitee
>> <good...@hotmail.com> writes
>> >Dear Peter, you filthy piece of sh**,


>>
>> >In article <3416e898...@news.pipeline.com>, lpa...@pipeline.com
wrote:
>> >
>> >> >good...@hotmail.com (Cognitee) expressed his sexual fantasies yet
>> >again when he abused his keyboard:
>> >>
>> >> >MS. Packer can kiss it, where the sun don't shine.
>> >> >
>> >> We're still waiting for your substantive answers to the questions:
>> >>
>> >> You said:

>> >> >> >>In Minnesota, a full-time college or university instructor who
>primarily
>> >> >> >>teaches developmental psychology OR who works full-time doing
>research
>> >in
>> >> >> >>this area can call himself a "developmental psychologist." NO
>license
>> >is
>> >> >> >>required for these positions. These are "exception" areas in MN Law,
>> >> >> >>where one can use the term "psychologist," as long as he offers no
>> >> >> >>services in an appleid area of
>> >> >> >>psychology (i.e. clinical or counsleing psychology) where a license
is
>> >> >> >>required. (We have been through ALL this before and you know it; you
>> >are
>> >> >> >>simply harassing me and indirectly making a false charge top FALSE
>> >> >> >>assassinate my character. NO ONE approves of this harassment except
>> >> >> >>disturbed individuals.)
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>I am a counseling instructor.
>> >> >> >>

>> >> And I asked you:
>> >>
>> >> >> >Are you claiming that at the time you made that statement you were
>> >> >> >employed as a full-time college instructor primarily teaching
>> >> >> >developmental psychology?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Are you claiming that you are now employed full-time as a college
>> >> >> >instructor?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> ><rest deleted>
>> >>
>> >> And Peter reminded you:
>> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Just to reiterate; what are the answers to Doctor Packer's questions,
>> >> >> Mister Jesness?
>> >> >> --
>> >> >> Peter
>> >>
>> >> And Joe Parsons has also asked you. You have a professional
>> >> obligation to clarify your credentials. I can quote you on this from
>> >> the archives, if you'd like, about how since you have made a claim,
>> >> you have to provide more information. That's what you said.
>> >>
>> >> Go ahead, Mr. Jesness. The whole world is watching.
>>

>> Yes, indeedy. But he will not answer. He has nothing to hide, and thus
>> nothing to show; he is a hypocrite.
>> --
>
--
Peter
In article <good_brad-260...@ts003d20.min-mn.concentric.net>,
Cognitee <good...@hotmail.com> writes
>We absolutely have no reason to see the
>"evidence." If you wish to adress the issue of **ME** further (EVEN WITH
>"EVIDENCE") , will you please explain to all of us (to the entire world)
>how this is appropriate. Let me put it to readers this way: Pretend I am
>of bad character. Hell, pretend I am an ax murderer. Fine.

Leslie E. Packer, PhD

unread,
Aug 8, 1997, 3:00:00 AM8/8/97
to

[newsgroups trimmed]

>Peter <Pe...@brentano.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>In article <good_brad-030...@ts003d04.min-mn.concentric.net>,
>Cognitee <good...@hotmail.com> writes
>>Dear Peter:
>> You have won against me. I shall not remain in this group long. I
>>made a fatal error. I did not remain anonymous.

[Wait. Hold it right there. How many times have we heard Brad say
that that was his error -- not remaining anonymous? Betcha there are
at least half a dozen posts where he says that _that_ was his problem.
Of course, even when he tried to remain anonymous, there were these
leeeetle clues, weren't there, "Dear Readers?"]

<rest of ethological analysis of Bard-behavior regretfully snipped,
but stored for savoring>


Leslie
------
Subject: For the Good of Myself and the Good of the Group: I no longer respond to abusive posts *OR* to persons that have abused me
From: Cognitee <na57...@anon.penet.fi>
Date: 1996/09/05
Message-Id: <50muq5$o...@antares.en.com>
Newsgroups: sci.psychology.psychotherapy

Dear Readers:
For the Good of Myself and the Good of the Group: I no longer
respond to abusive posts *OR* to persons that have abused me (because
this is where it will lead). I hope all can understand this. I may seem
like I am avoiding responding to issues (which I have NEVER done in the
past 15 mo.), but that is a price I have to pay in participating in a
group with many abusive people. I think my idea (just stated) for
quelling "problems" here is a good one and is very considerate OF ALL.
Thank you.
sincerely, b jesness, psychology instructor, counseling
instructor, noted and plublished behavioral scientist

Peter

unread,
Aug 8, 1997, 3:00:00 AM8/8/97
to

In article <34129377...@news.pipeline.com>, "Leslie E. Packer,
PhD" <lpa...@pipeline.com> writes

>>good...@hotmail.com (Cognitee) wrote:
>
>>You have no reason to know credentials; I am providing you no service.
>
>And no one was providing you any service when you DEMANDED their
>credentials and threatened to go after licenses, membership, etc. if
>they didn't provide them. I have the posts saved, Brad.
>
>>You are a phoney Leslie. A sicko phoney. Please sh** or get off the pot.
>>
>It's already in the works, Brad. Be patient. You'll find out in due
>course.

Even a good laxative takes a while to pass, no? >;->

good...@hotmail.com (Cognitee) wrote:
>Petey, you bugger, you can kiss my buttocks right now.

No thank you. Your guts are rumbling and this I fear presages a massive
downpour. Tell us all when the gateway to sewage land is vacant,
please? Hmmmm. My five days of absence will probably do.
--
Peter
In article <Pine.A32.3.91.970412...@badlands.NoDak.edu>,
pl...@badlands.NoDak.edu (Joseph J. Plaud) writes
>This is actually approaching the edge of ridiculousness. Every once in a
>while this Mr. Jesness or whoever he is resubscribes to the
>clinical-psychologists list under some assumed name and different email
>address. It takes but one or two posts for most subscribers to our list
>to discover this, given that the posts are confused, threatening
>ramblings. After "Mr. Enon" was removed, a friend of mine sent me a copy
>of a post Mr. Jesness made to the psych and law mailing list (which has
>nothing to do with this issue) calling me a "nazi" etc. etc.

Peter

unread,
Aug 8, 1997, 3:00:00 AM8/8/97
to

In article <33f7649a...@news.pipeline.com>, "Leslie E. Packer,
PhD" <lpa...@pipeline.com> writes
>[newsgroups trimmed]

[then expanded to include abjddd]

>>Peter <Pe...@brentano.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>In article <good_brad-030...@ts003d04.min-mn.concentric.net>,
>>Cognitee <good...@hotmail.com> writes
>>>Dear Peter:
>>> You have won against me. I shall not remain in this group long. I
>>>made a fatal error. I did not remain anonymous.
>

>[Wait. Hold it right there. How many times have we heard Brad say
>that that was his error -- not remaining anonymous? Betcha there are
>at least half a dozen posts where he says that _that_ was his problem.
>Of course, even when he tried to remain anonymous, there were these
>leeeetle clues, weren't there, "Dear Readers?"]
>
><rest of ethological analysis of Bard-behavior regretfully snipped,
>but stored for savoring>

Whilst away I will consider ways of improving my thesis and case study.
Err, cases <151>, errrm, case studies?

Also whilst away I will construct the RFD for abjddd<moderated>. Will
you grace it as a second proponent? Who'll select the moderators, or
should we have a CFM? OTOH, could we put all 151 names in two hats,
shake them, simultaneously draw names and check for inter-drawer
reliability?

>Leslie
>------
>Subject: For the Good of Myself and the Good of the Group: I no longer
>respond to abusive posts *OR* to persons that have abused me
>From: Cognitee <na57...@anon.penet.fi>
>Date: 1996/09/05
>Message-Id: <50muq5$o...@antares.en.com>
>Newsgroups: sci.psychology.psychotherapy
>
>Dear Readers:

<snip>


>Thank you.
> sincerely, b jesness, psychology instructor, counseling
> instructor, noted and plublished behavioral scientist

There, that's better. That is all one needs to know evidence-wise, isn't
it?
--
Peter
In article <good_brad-070...@dial022.future.net>, Cognitee
<good...@hotmail.com> shat all over spp;


>You have no reason to know credentials; I am providing you no service.

>You are a phoney Leslie. A sicko phoney. Please sh** or get off the pot.

How he loves his gateway home. He cannot stand to see others blocking it, for he
may need to make a fast getaway whilst in search of nutrition in the absence of
some whole-fibre vomit.

Cognitee

unread,
Aug 10, 1997, 3:00:00 AM8/10/97
to

Dear Leslie,
All you shall do is further my cause by giving my views a good hearing,
while disgracing everyone else (including yourself).

In article <34129377...@news.pipeline.com>, lpa...@pipeline.com wrote:

> >good...@hotmail.com (Cognitee) wrote:
>
> >You have no reason to know credentials; I am providing you no service.
>

> And no one was providing you any service when you DEMANDED their
> credentials and threatened to go after licenses, membership, etc. if
> they didn't provide them. I have the posts saved, Brad.
>

> >You are a phoney Leslie. A sicko phoney. Please sh** or get off the pot.
> >

> It's already in the works, Brad. Be patient. You'll find out in due
> course.
>

> >In article <33fd6838...@news.pipeline.com>, lpa...@pipeline.com wrote:
> >
> >> >good...@hotmail.com (Cognitee) wrote:
> >>
> >> >Demand all you want.
> >>
> >> Read more carefully. I said you were being "asked to give." I said
> >> that YOU had "demanded" of others what you have repeatedly been asked
> >> to provide for yourself.
> >>
> >> >You have no rights
> >>
> >> Wrong.
> >>
> >> > NOR any good purpose
> >>
> >> Wrong again.
> >>

> >> >NOR any
> >> >need. I will give thugs nothing.
> >> >

> >> Well, I may need them for what I am thinking of doing. Then again, I
> >> may not. IAE, it is your responsibility to provide them since you
> >> stated that professionals were required to be forthcoming about their
> >> professional credentials.
> >>

> >> >In article <33fb19f0...@news.pipeline.com>,


lpa...@pipeline.com wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> >good...@hotmail.com (Cognitee) wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >I SHALL NOT PROVIDE THIS NEWSGROUP WITH A SHREAD MORE PERSONAL
INFORMATION
> >> >> >ABOUT ME.
> >> >>

> >> >> It is professional information you are being asked to give. The same
> >> >> kind of professional information you have DEMANDED of others. You
> >> >> have made claims about your credentials and it is legitimate to
> >> >> ask/expect you to provide some verifiable backing for them.
> >> >>
> >> >> <snip of your attempt to distract>
> >> >>
> >> >> Here are the relevant parts of the past post where you have made
> >> >> claims that you were asked about:
> >> >> [lp]

> >> >> >> We're still waiting for your substantive answers to the questions:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> You said:
> >> >>

> >> >> [bj]


> >> >> >> >> >>In Minnesota, a full-time college or university instructor who
> >> >primarily
> >> >> >> >> >>teaches developmental psychology OR who works full-time doing
> >> >research in
> >> >> >> >> >>this area can call himself a "developmental psychologist." NO
> >> >license is
> >> >> >> >> >>required for these positions. These are "exception" areas in
> >MN Law,
> >> >> >> >> >>where one can use the term "psychologist," as long as he
offers no
> >> >> >> >> >>services in an appleid area of
> >> >> >> >> >>psychology (i.e. clinical or counsleing psychology) where a
> >license is
> >> >> >> >> >>required. (We have been through ALL this before and you know
> >> >it; you are
> >> >> >> >> >>simply harassing me and indirectly making a false charge
top FALSE
> >> >> >> >> >>assassinate my character. NO ONE approves of this harassment
> >except
> >> >> >> >> >>disturbed individuals.)
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >>I am a counseling instructor.
> >> >> >> >> >>

> >> >> >> And I asked you:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >Are you claiming that at the time you made that statement
you were
> >> >> >> >> >employed as a full-time college instructor primarily teaching
> >> >> >> >> >developmental psychology?
> >> >> >> >> >

> >> >> What's your answer, Brad?
> >> >>

> >> >> >> >> >Are you claiming that you are now employed full-time as a college
> >> >> >> >> >instructor?
> >> >> >> >> >

> >> >> What's your answer, Brad?
> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> ><rest deleted>
> >> >> >>

> >> >> >> And Peter reminded you:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Just to reiterate; what are the answers to Doctor Packer's
questions,
> >> >> >> >> Mister Jesness?
> >> >> >> >> --
> >> >> >> >> Peter
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> And Joe Parsons has also asked you. You have a professional
> >> >> >> obligation to clarify your credentials. I can quote you on this from
> >> >> >> the archives, if you'd like, about how since you have made a claim,
> >> >> >> you have to provide more information. That's what you said.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Go ahead, Mr. Jesness. The whole world is watching.
> >> >>

> >> >> And still is.

Cognitee

unread,
Aug 10, 1997, 3:00:00 AM8/10/97
to

Dear Leslie,
A college instructor is a professional, no certification necessary in
Minnesota (but at least a masters degree in a discipline is realistically
required). I am a professional psychology instructor. I am a
professional in the field of psychology. (I could give a damn how much
this may irritate you. It just shows your SICKNESS that it does bother
you.) I have been "certified" BY EVIDENCE PRESENTED TO THE NEWSGROUP
(using a real and broader meaning of the word) as being a psychology
instructor. (I do reserve the right to use the English language.) Again,
no certification otherwise is either necessary **or exists**.
Certification has virtually no bearing on whether an indivdiual is a
professional in the psychology field. The way you want to use the term,
the best child development researchers in the world would not be
"professionals" (for similar reasons). You also, I suppose, would not
like to call them "psychologists". Too bad; they are, and moreso than
"hack" "therapists", since they are real practicing scientists. (The
hacks who are licensed are licensed not because of their merit butto give
the public some [inadequate] protection against imcompetence !!!)
The State Boards you refer to have absolutely no authority over me
whatsoever. N O N E . Stuff it, Leslie (proceed directly to your nervous
breakdown !!)

You are complete insane, in my view. Others see you as insane too (right
along with your "good friend" Peter Hood, if not moreso). Your a "nut"
that has SQUAT !!! YOU SEEM TO BE VENGEFUL AND IN A PSYCHOTIC RAGE, LIKE
PETER (though a bit more coherent). Please try to recall that your mental
problems are not the topic or interest of this newsgroup. Your irrational
concerns about *SUPPOSED* status issues is not only sick but ridiculous.
If you ever get results, possibly you might let us know. You are probably
hoping to reserve that "good stuff" for the new newsgroup TROI BE RUN BY
YOUR FRIENDS !! Even that would be off-topic, sicko !!


In article <33edd91b....@news.pipeline.com>, lpa...@pipeline.com wrote:

> Please excuse me for doing something I generally try to avoid, but I
> am going to follow up on one of my own posts and simultaneously start
> a new thread, since Brad has made certain statements publicly that I
> attempted to verify. See comments interspersed below....


>
> >lpa...@pipeline.com (Leslie E. Packer, PhD) wrote:
>
> >[newsgroups trimmed]
> >
> >>good...@hotmail.com (Cognitee) wrote:
> >
> >
> ><snip>
> >

> >>In Minnesota, a full-time college or university instructor who primarily
> >>teaches developmental psychology OR who works full-time doing research in
> >>this area can call himself a "developmental psychologist." NO license is
> >>required for these positions. These are "exception" areas in MN Law,
> >>where one can use the term "psychologist," as long as he offers no
> >>services in an appleid area of
> >>psychology (i.e. clinical or counsleing psychology) where a license is
> >>required. (We have been through ALL this before and you know it; you are
> >>simply harassing me and indirectly making a false charge top FALSE
> >>assassinate my character. NO ONE approves of this harassment except
> >>disturbed individuals.)
>

> I spoke to the State Board of Psychology in Minnesota. They say Brad
> is neither licensed nor certified by them. Furthermore, as to the use
> of the term "psychologist," they inform me that even if his college
> gave him the title of "developmental psychologist" (which I and they
> seriously doubt, since the title/rank would be something like
> "Instructor"), that only permits him to use the title "psychologist"
> while he's at his desk or in his teaching environment -- it does not
> permit him to use the title anywhere else, even if he is not
> providing services or selling services, and that includes the Internet
> (I specifically told them that these were Internet posts). Since Brad
> publicly stated last year that he would no longer call himself a
> "developmental psychologist" (after a heated thread on title
> protection), this is a small point, but I mention it for future
> reference should there be a relapse in his posting behavior wrt this.
>
> The person I spoke to at the State Board of Psychology was absolutely
> appalled when I told them how Brad describes individuals with
> disabilities. So were the representatives of other agencies I spoke
> to today.
>
> Let's continue.....
>
> Brad had stated:


> >>I am a counseling instructor.
> >>

> And I asked:


> >Are you claiming that at the time you made that statement you were
> >employed as a full-time college instructor primarily teaching
> >developmental psychology?
> >

> >Are you claiming that you are now employed full-time as a college
> >instructor?
> >

> So now those questions are irrelevant in some respects, but I do
> intend to find out the answers to them because I've just begun some
> steps that I intend to pursue.
>
> ><rest deleted>
>
> In a previous public post, safely archived in D/N and on hdd of many
> people, Brad stated the following:
>
> ----------------- begin re-post ----------------
> >Subject: Re: John Price's "Scientific Studies"
> >From: good...@hotmail.com (Cognitee)
> >Date: 1997/06/22
> >Message-Id: <good_brad-220...@dial004.future.net>
> >Newsgroups: sci.psychology.psychotherapy
> >[More Headers]
>
> >Dear Peter,
> > I will diagnose some things at will !!!! I am a professional who can
> > "diagnose" knowledge/learning/education problems, as I did with Larry
> >Lyons !! He can follow the "prescription" I gave him or suffer in a
> >life-long way !!! I have been certified as a professional in this field
> >!!
>
> Note carefully that last line.
>
> According to the State of Minnesota, Brad is _not_ certified as a
> professional in "this field." He is not certified in psychology or
> school psychology at the k-12 level, he is not certified by
> Post-Secondary Education, and college instructors are not required to
> have certification to teach, according to them.
>
> So exactly what is this "certification" Brad claims to hold as a
> professional "in this field?" The State Board of Psychology, the
> Board of Teaching, Post-Secondary Education, and Higher Education
> boards/agencies all say that he is neither licensed nor certified by
> them.
>
> > I have every right to use the full English language as you do -- MORE,
> >we bailed your *** BUTTS out *** in WW II AND WW I (otherwise you would
> >be speaking German, right now) !!!! I will say again that, judging by
> >your newsgroup behavior, you appear to be "nuts".
>
> Again, diagnosing without credentials is extremely risky. And we have
> many posts where Brad has made statements as an alleged counseling
> instructor, etc. I will not repost them here, as the 'regulars' have
> seen them often enough and have them archived.
>
> > There is no good evidencew that a Cyber Cafe owner ever confronted me.
> >He confronted **someone** , but ** NOT ME ** !!! I cannot help that I
> >apparently have some wierd friends. Did you even find out whether the
> >fellow confronted ever SAID he was me ?? I doubt he did.
> > In conclusion Peter, as a counseling instructor I can tell you: you
> >are not fit for a human service profession.
>
> Ah, well there's an example right there....
>
> >Your conduct shows no proper
> >regard for people and you are abusive of people *personally* (being
> >liblous and prying into personal matters *and* trying to solicit similar
> >abuses from others). You are libelous. I am not. YOU are bad, legally
> >speaking and morally speaking, and I am not. You abuse me personally and
> >in irrelevant ways; I never conduct myself this way. I address what is in
> >the newsgroup only !!!!!!!!! Learn some propriety, bugger.
>
> Now you see where Brad put "as a counseling instructor I can tell
> you..?"
>
> I think it's time Brad stated publicly exactly what certification he
> holds and in what state.
>
> Shall I call Iowa to find out if you were ever certified there for
> anything, Brad?
>
> Are you certified in Minnesota as a podiatrist or something?
>
> And before you begin screaming 'libel,' let me save you the phone call
> to an attorney: it is not "libel" when I present anyone or any
> agency or any employer with your own words.
>
> If you would like to publicly correct and/or clarify the record about
> what certification you hold in Minnesota that enables you to
> "diagnose" anything, including, but not limited to, certain kinds of
> "knowledge/learning/education problems," then you may do so here. If
> you would like to publicly retract any public statements or correct
> them, I'd suggest you do so now.
>
> Otherwise, note that the State of MN says that you are not certified
> to diagnose/evaluate learning problems, etc. although you have
> publicly made claims to the contrary.
>
> I am deleting the rest of the archived post, which was merely a post
> from Peter that you were responding to when you made the above
> statements.
>
> I have only begun, Brad.

Cognitee

unread,
Aug 10, 1997, 3:00:00 AM8/10/97
to

Leslie,
You are a ridiculous irrational sicko. Why don't you save all the "good
stuff" for the new newsgroup run by your friends (surely they will not
censor or delay you !!, though you are constantly off-topic and
inapprorpiate). Or do you believe you shall lose? If they lose they
surely will have you as one main one to thank !! Why don't you try to
"crack" PRIVATELY??
IF THE NEW NEWSGROUP PASSES, I suppose we can all expect to see more of
your "quality posts." After all your are an acknowledged friend of the
"moderators" !!!! What a joke.

In article <33edd91b....@news.pipeline.com>, lpa...@pipeline.com wrote:

> Please excuse me for doing something I generally try to avoid, but I
> am going to follow up on one of my own posts and simultaneously start
> a new thread, since Brad has made certain statements publicly that I
> attempted to verify. See comments interspersed below....
>
> >lpa...@pipeline.com (Leslie E. Packer, PhD) wrote:
>
> >[newsgroups trimmed]
> >
> >>good...@hotmail.com (Cognitee) wrote:
> >
> >
> ><snip>
> >

> >>In Minnesota, a full-time college or university instructor who primarily
> >>teaches developmental psychology OR who works full-time doing research in
> >>this area can call himself a "developmental psychologist." NO license is
> >>required for these positions. These are "exception" areas in MN Law,
> >>where one can use the term "psychologist," as long as he offers no
> >>services in an appleid area of
> >>psychology (i.e. clinical or counsleing psychology) where a license is
> >>required. (We have been through ALL this before and you know it; you are
> >>simply harassing me and indirectly making a false charge top FALSE
> >>assassinate my character. NO ONE approves of this harassment except
> >>disturbed individuals.)
>

> I spoke to the State Board of Psychology in Minnesota. They say Brad
> is neither licensed nor certified by them. Furthermore, as to the use
> of the term "psychologist," they inform me that even if his college
> gave him the title of "developmental psychologist" (which I and they
> seriously doubt, since the title/rank would be something like
> "Instructor"), that only permits him to use the title "psychologist"
> while he's at his desk or in his teaching environment -- it does not
> permit him to use the title anywhere else, even if he is not
> providing services or selling services, and that includes the Internet
> (I specifically told them that these were Internet posts). Since Brad
> publicly stated last year that he would no longer call himself a
> "developmental psychologist" (after a heated thread on title
> protection), this is a small point, but I mention it for future
> reference should there be a relapse in his posting behavior wrt this.
>
> The person I spoke to at the State Board of Psychology was absolutely
> appalled when I told them how Brad describes individuals with
> disabilities. So were the representatives of other agencies I spoke
> to today.
>
> Let's continue.....
>
> Brad had stated:

> >>I am a counseling instructor.
> >>

--

Cognitee

unread,
Aug 11, 1997, 3:00:00 AM8/11/97
to

Dear Leslie,
I have been certified (even in your limited use of the term, i.e.
licensed) to diagnose knowledge/learning/education problems -- as legally
regulated. I will not present you with further details here, but I
caution you not to cause me damages due to your libeling me. I can
already show that you have been libelous. Any damage forthcoming will
result in a suit since a full libel case will be substantiated. (I, in
contrast, being of sound mind, have NEVER libeled anyone. I have simply
stated facts WITH evidence, or reasonable assessments with evidence and
NEVER done anything with malice as the intent.)

On your other point. It is NOT necessary to put "certified" in quotes to
use the term in its proper broader meaning. You are absolutely possessed
with "status issues". So much so that you seem to believe that all
professionals will be certified (OTHER than with a degree from an
institution of higher education). This is not the case. Your obsessing
about certification and status issues indicates you are a gravely
disturbed individual -- probably have low self esteem and dependency.
Ironically, the type of certification YOU talk about most is
licensing. IN THE "therapy" field, this is certification NOT to indicate
extra status or achievement, but is rather something that is done after
(presumably) all education and training AND EVALUATION OF SKILLS has been
already DONE. The licensing is just an added step to try to weed out
incompetents that have slipped through the system. An extra test, simply
to safeguard the public, is involved. Presumably all decent clinicians
would pass the test already if their training had been decent. In my
profession as a college psychology instructor there is enough confidence
in our training, skills, and other qualifications that licensing is not
seen as necessary. My training, thus, is more admired and revered by
society !!! THE "THERAPY" PROFESSION IS SUSPECT AND THIS IS THE LIGHT THE
PUBLIC SHOULD VIEW IT IN. This is the information people should most take
note of here.

GET HELP ***SICKO***

In article <341520a5....@news.pipeline.com>, lpa...@pipeline.com wrote:

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


>
> > I have been "certified" BY EVIDENCE PRESENTED TO THE NEWSGROUP
> >(using a real and broader meaning of the word) as being a psychology
> >instructor. (I do reserve the right to use the English language.) Again,
> >no certification otherwise is either necessary **or exists**.
>

> <snip>
>
> IOW, you misrepresented when you claimed certification without any
> quotation marks and said that:


>
> " I will diagnose some things at will !!!! I am a professional who
> can "diagnose" knowledge/learning/education problems, as I did with
> Larry Lyons !! He can follow the "prescription" I gave him or suffer
> in a life-long way !!! I have been certified as a professional in
> this field!!"
>

> Thank you. Note that you have not, however, presented any evidence to
> this newsgroup that you are a psychology or counseling instructor.
> Note, too, that your right to use the English language (which you tend
> to abuse more than use) stops when you claim titles or credentials
> that are legally regulated. Claiming that you are an instructor is
> not legally regulated. Claiming certification as a professional is.

--

Joseph P. Arco

unread,
Aug 11, 1997, 3:00:00 AM8/11/97
to

Cognitee wrote:
>
> Dear Leslie,

[deleted]

> GET HELP ***SICKO***

[deleted]


Blaming again?

Larry C. Lyons

unread,
Aug 11, 1997, 3:00:00 AM8/11/97
to

In article <good_brad-100...@ts008d04.min-mn.concentric.net>

Cognitee, good...@hotmail.com writes:
> YOU SEEM TO BE VENGEFUL AND IN A PSYCHOTIC RAGE, LIKE
>PETER (though a bit more coherent). Please try to recall that your mental
>problems are not the topic or interest of this newsgroup. Your irrational
>concerns about *SUPPOSED* status issues is not only sick but ridiculous.

While I'm not a follower of most of Freud's thoughts, this is one of the
best examples of projection I have ever seen. Keep it up bradnee, with
each bit of verbal diarrhea you spew, you make the possibility of
sci.psychology.psychotherapy.moderated more likely to pass.

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.
========================================================

Cognitee

unread,
Aug 12, 1997, 3:00:00 AM8/12/97
to

Dear Joe A.,
Yes, I may well be "blaming" Leslie for the malicicious and
falsely-based character assassination (as a judge and jury may as well).
If I ever have clear damages, I intend to sue her.
She should not be sleeping easy at night. I am confident that if I
could show clear OR LIKELY damages, I could get Leslie Packer LEGALLY
convicted of libel.

In article <33EF63...@jarco.mv.com>, "Joseph P. Arco"
<ja...@jarco.mv.com> wrote:

--

Dan L. Rogers

unread,
Aug 12, 1997, 3:00:00 AM8/12/97
to

Farewell wrote:
(resuctant snip of delightful interlude)
>
> Well, the Bolero isn't designed for this medium, although the horns are
> surely the best burlesque of your performance that springs to mind.


Or the early baroque musical instrument, the flatulato robusto. That
really fits the performance abilities of the Mucoid One.

Cognitee

unread,
Aug 12, 1997, 3:00:00 AM8/12/97
to

Dear Larry,
Do you realize your post was sent just seconds before the vote was over.

In article <5so91l$4...@news1.mnsinc.com>, Larry C. Lyons
<NoS...@mnsinc.com> wrote:

--

Cognitee

unread,
Aug 12, 1997, 3:00:00 AM8/12/97
to

Dear Lelsie,
You have not presented evidence to this newsgroup that you are anything
(as far as having any professional job). Please provide your full job
description **of your regular paid work** and the place where you work and
I shall consider honoring your request. (This is, in effect, what you are
asking of me.) I think you are a complete phoney and a nobody. (With a
degree in experimental psychology, the fact you have some license may mean
as little to everyone else as it does to me !!)

In article <341520a5....@news.pipeline.com>, lpa...@pipeline.com wrote:

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

> > I have been "certified" BY EVIDENCE PRESENTED TO THE NEWSGROUP
> >(using a real and broader meaning of the word) as being a psychology
> >instructor. (I do reserve the right to use the English language.) Again,
> >no certification otherwise is either necessary **or exists**.
>

> <snip>
>
> IOW, you misrepresented when you claimed certification without any
> quotation marks and said that:
>

> " I will diagnose some things at will !!!! I am a professional who
> can "diagnose" knowledge/learning/education problems, as I did with
> Larry Lyons !! He can follow the "prescription" I gave him or suffer
> in a life-long way !!! I have been certified as a professional in

> this field!!"
>
> Thank you. Note that you have not, however, presented any evidence to
> this newsgroup that you are a psychology or counseling instructor.
> Note, too, that your right to use the English language (which you tend
> to abuse more than use) stops when you claim titles or credentials
> that are legally regulated. Claiming that you are an instructor is
> not legally regulated. Claiming certification as a professional is.

--

Farewell

unread,
Aug 12, 1997, 3:00:00 AM8/12/97
to

In article <good_brad-100...@ts008d04.min-mn.concentric.net>,
Cognitee <good...@hotmail.com> writes

>Leslie,
> You are a ridiculous irrational sicko.

Unconditional positive regard reaches a new height?

>Why don't you save all the "good
>stuff" for the new newsgroup

Why, even should it pass?

>run by your friends (surely they will not
>censor or delay you !!, though you are constantly off-topic and
>inapprorpiate).

You of course never are.

>Or do you believe you shall lose? If they lose they
>surely will have you as one main one to thank !! Why don't you try to
>"crack" PRIVATELY??

I didn't see Leslie crack, I saw more dignity in that one post than I
ever have in all of yours.

> IF THE NEW NEWSGROUP PASSES, I suppose we can all expect to see more of
>your "quality posts." After all your are an acknowledged friend of the
>"moderators" !!!! What a joke.

I took off Wm. Byrd's Three Masses. For you I am playing an appropriate
piece. I hope that you can understand it:

There once was a man from the old stoneage
and he used to follow the weather
but now he's got hung up on filling a page
upon whether to go or together
and he's been around for so damn long
with his whooping and wailing
crushing questions between right and wrong
and impaling
the best he can hope on the worst he can fear
on the solstices of this wacking illusion
a massive erection of pushy defence
up the whole of the prosecution...
...aaah, great solace the wound, great *relish* the pain
to be loosing the reins of a poem
to bleed from the tip of my tongue yet again
that part of my heart that is showing
these children conceived in the womb of this crash
to be the sponsors of nothing much other
than rearguard directions of crossfingered sections
of purpose pot looking for nothing
but what is this last desperate vestige of heart over head
but another conjecture
no more the tomb of the martyred dead
than the ghost of our parting gesture...

<Roy Harper; from _The Lord's Prayer_, conceived when the doctors had
given him up as dying.>

Well, the Bolero isn't designed for this medium, although the horns are
surely the best burlesque of your performance that springs to mind.

--
Peter

Peter

unread,
Aug 13, 1997, 3:00:00 AM8/13/97
to

In article <33F10A...@ia.frontiercomm.net>, "Dan L. Rogers"
<dlro...@ia.frontiercomm.net> writes

>Farewell wrote:
>(resuctant snip of delightful interlude)
>>
>> Well, the Bolero isn't designed for this medium, although the horns are
>> surely the best burlesque of your performance that springs to mind.
>
>
>Or the early baroque musical instrument, the flatulato robusto. That
>really fits the performance abilities of the Mucoid One.

Hi, Dan.

As you know flatulati were popular in European mediaeval choirs. Hence
my parodic pseudonym "Squeaky", adopted an anti-liturgical frame of
mind. <I was that queristre.>

How come e-mail to you bounces? <Well, I'm unsubscribing by the week-
end.>
--
Peter-Snowball
"Four legs good, two legs bad."

0 new messages