Bradnee: Opportunity to prove what you have claimed.
Dan L. Rogers, Ph.D.
This is a wacko response on your part. Just plain silly.
You have not answered the questions with anything other than
unsupported claims. It is up to you to prove your claims.
To wit:
1. You claimed that you have registered (your word) your use of
psychological tests (or personality tests) for pay with state
authorities. Please post a copy of this registration or the state
official or agency with whom you registered.
2. You claim that you have cleared your use and possession
of such tests with licensing boards. Please post a copy of
their statements to that effect. (Note: No licensing board will
give a verbal answer to such a question.)
3. You claim that publishers of the tests have accepted your
qualifications. Please post a copy of your application or statement
of qualifications to NCS, the publisher of the MMPI.
Or, just settle this all: Email the Minnesota Psychology Licensing
Board and cc this usenet group. In this email, ask the MN Board
for an official opinion regarding whether or not you are, according
to Minnesota law, allowed to administer personality tests (such as
the MMPI) for pay or not for pay, either one.
Now, your response is likely to be a) that you really did not say
any of this, and b) that you don't have to prove a thing.
No scientist would respond in such a manner. I and others
have offered you a strictly logical, scientific manner in which
to end the dispute.
If you do not provide this information, then you will have acknowledged
that you are unable to do so. And that means that you have lied
all along.
I am repeating the following post from a couple of weeks ago, since
bradnee has avoided it so far. bradnee has made claims that he
can prove, easily. If he does prove them, as noted below, then I'll
be at the head of the line to say that I and we have all been wrong,
that he is, indeed, qualified.
If bradnee cannot meet these simple proofs, well ...
I said:
I am repeating the following post from a couple of weeks ago, since
bradnee has avoided it so far. bradnee has made claims that he
can prove, easily. If he does prove them, as noted below, then I'll
be at the head of the line to say that I and we have all been wrong,
that he is, indeed, qualified.
If bradnee cannot meet these simple proofs, well ...
I said:
I am repeating the following post from a couple of weeks ago, since
bradnee has avoided it so far. bradnee has made claims that he
can prove, easily. If he does prove them, as noted below, then I'll
be at the head of the line to say that I and we have all been wrong,
that he is, indeed, qualified.
If bradnee cannot meet these simple proofs, well ...
I said:
I posted the following a couple of weeks ago. bradnee has
avoided it. That must mean that it is worth repeating.
As I noted, bradnee has made claims that others do not believe,
but that would be simple for him to prove. If he does prove them
as delineated below, I'll be at the head of the line to acclaim
him as qualified, and me as wrong!
I posted:
Cognitee wrote in article
> Dear Dan,
> I **do know** the law and understand it (I have told you this
> repeatedly); you do not know it. AND: IF I AM GUILTY OF ANYTHING IT IS
> UP TO SOMEONE TO PROVE IT (does all this ring a bell now ??). You are
> presuming guilt without proof (on based on presumption).
On the contrary, I am affording you an opportunity to demonstrate that
you have the basis for providing personality testing services for hire,
rather
than force you to defend yourself in a legal venue. I am providing a
courtesy and I am giving you a way out.
You can demonstrate that you are allowed to do as you claim to do
without incurring expense or legal exposure. I am, as I should do with
most people, offering an informal resolution.
bradnee, you made the claims that you are allowed, by law, to do something.
Prove it in the manner described above, and I'll certainly acknowledge
that you can.
I KNOW I am in
> the right and in accord with the law. Also I find your presumptions not
> only most ignorant but unjustified as well. A clinician is not needed to
> validly interpret inventories (and I would submit that most testing is
> better done by NON-clinicians). Clinicians have NO special knowledge
over
> what people like me have with respect to most inventories
Courts have certainly ruled otherwise. Please let me know of a single
state district court or federal court that has admitted your testimony as
an expert in interpretation of psychological tests.
(in fact, I have
> more knowledge of more inventories and can more ethically give and
> interpret more of them than the typical clinician). If you think that I
> am incorrect *and* not in accord with the law and want to stop me It is
> IN FACT YOU that must prove it. In our society the accuser must prove a
> case.
That is not true. A prosecutor must prove the case. I and others have
merely
challenged your claims. In such a situation, the one with the claims has
the burden of proof.
Quit your rudeness and prove what you have claimed. You made the
assertions, now prove them.
Cognitee
Dear Dan Rogers,
Thanks for the "opportunity". I decline **AGAIN**. Kiss my buttocks.
Let me know when you have provided proof of your U.S. citizenship or stop
voting. And, make sure to weigh your feces for a month and let us know
how much it weighs. (<-- Get my point; these parallel your requests.
Your requests are not normal and your are getting into personal data more
than you have any business to.) I owe you NO information whatsoever. I
am obliged only to provide information to my clients.
DAN, THIS SHALL ALWAYS BE MY ANSWER TO YOUR RUDE REQUESTS, WHICH
CONSTITUTE HARASSMENT *AT THIS POINT* BECAUSE I HAVE SAID REPEATEDLY THAT
I WILL NOT TROUBLE MYSELF TO GO TO EXTRAORDINARY LENGTHS TO PROVIDE YOU
"PROOF" OF ANYTHING. *Maybe* after you prove your citizenship by posting
a notorized copy of your birth certificate, I will reconsider. Right now
I believe you are a lobotomized Nazi fugitive from Hitler's Germany. I
HAVE INFORMED YOU THAT I SHALL NO MORE PROVE TO YOU MY RIGHTS THAN YOU
WILL PROVE TO ME YOUR U.S. CITIZENSHIP. AND I WILL NO MORE GIVE YOU
INFORMATION ON MY PERSONAL AFFAIRS AND BUSINESS THAN YOU WILL WEIGH YOUR
FECES. CLEAR??
You raise doubt against me on NO decent basis whatseoever. I have
informed you of the facts. Take legal action with appropriate authorities
if you don't believe me. But, stop harassing me and this newsgroup.
In article <01bd2b85$032764c0$24a282d1@oemcomputer>, "Dan L. Rogers,
Tim Brown
good...@hotmail.com (Cognitee) writes:
>Dear Dan Rogers,
> Thanks for the "opportunity". I decline **AGAIN**. Kiss my buttocks.
>Let me know when you have provided proof of your U.S. citizenship or stop
>voting. And, make sure to weigh your feces for a month and let us know
>how much it weighs. (<-- Get my point; these parallel your requests.
>Your requests are not normal and your are getting into personal data more
>than you have any business to.) I owe you NO information whatsoever. I
>am obliged only to provide information to my clients.
>DAN, THIS SHALL ALWAYS BE MY ANSWER TO YOUR RUDE REQUESTS, WHICH
>CONSTITUTE HARASSMENT *AT THIS POINT* BECAUSE I HAVE SAID REPEATEDLY THAT
>I WILL NOT TROUBLE MYSELF TO GO TO EXTRAORDINARY LENGTHS TO PROVIDE YOU
>"PROOF" OF ANYTHING. *Maybe* after you prove your citizenship by posting
>a notorized copy of your birth certificate, I will reconsider. Right now
>I believe you are a lobotomized Nazi fugitive from Hitler's Germany. I
>HAVE INFORMED YOU THAT I SHALL NO MORE PROVE TO YOU MY RIGHTS THAN YOU
>WILL PROVE TO ME YOUR U.S. CITIZENSHIP. AND I WILL NO MORE GIVE YOU
>INFORMATION ON MY PERSONAL AFFAIRS AND BUSINESS THAN YOU WILL WEIGH YOUR
>FECES. CLEAR??
>You raise doubt against me on NO decent basis whatseoever. I have
>informed you of the facts. Take legal action with appropriate authorities
>if you don't believe me. But, stop harassing me and this newsgroup.
Brad is right. Mister Rogers needs to stop harassing Brad, not just
because Brad doesn't want to be subjected to it, but just because it is
wrong. The lack of ethical standards exhibited by Brad's foes is
appalling and literally makes me sick.
--
bath...@iglou.com http://members.iglou.com/bathroom Tantrum 95.7 FM
Read THE LAST WORD before the Kenton County Public LIEbrary censors it!
Annoy a conservative -- THINK!
*** Gatewood Galbraith for Governor 1999 ***
Peter
In article <EnH9B...@iglou.com>, Tim Brown <bath...@iglou2.iglou.com>
writes
>good...@hotmail.com (Cognitee) writes:
>
>>Dear Dan Rogers,
>> Thanks for the "opportunity". I decline **AGAIN**. Kiss my buttocks.
>>Let me know when you have provided proof of your U.S. citizenship or stop
>>voting. And, make sure to weigh your feces for a month and let us know
>>how much it weighs. (<-- Get my point; these parallel your requests.
>>Your requests are not normal and your are getting into personal data more
>>than you have any business to.) I owe you NO information whatsoever. I
>>am obliged only to provide information to my clients.
>
>>DAN, THIS SHALL ALWAYS BE MY ANSWER TO YOUR RUDE REQUESTS, WHICH
>>CONSTITUTE HARASSMENT *AT THIS POINT* BECAUSE I HAVE SAID REPEATEDLY THAT
>>I WILL NOT TROUBLE MYSELF TO GO TO EXTRAORDINARY LENGTHS TO PROVIDE YOU
>>"PROOF" OF ANYTHING. *Maybe* after you prove your citizenship by posting
>>a notorized copy of your birth certificate, I will reconsider. Right now
>>I believe you are a lobotomized Nazi fugitive from Hitler's Germany. I
>>HAVE INFORMED YOU THAT I SHALL NO MORE PROVE TO YOU MY RIGHTS THAN YOU
>>WILL PROVE TO ME YOUR U.S. CITIZENSHIP. AND I WILL NO MORE GIVE YOU
>>INFORMATION ON MY PERSONAL AFFAIRS AND BUSINESS THAN YOU WILL WEIGH YOUR
>>FECES. CLEAR??
>
>>You raise doubt against me on NO decent basis whatseoever. I have
>>informed you of the facts. Take legal action with appropriate authorities
>>if you don't believe me. But, stop harassing me and this newsgroup.
>
>because Brad doesn't want to be subjected to it, but just because it is
>wrong. The lack of ethical standards exhibited by Brad's foes is
>appalling and literally makes me sick.
You are appalled because you, like 'Professor' Jesness, like to claim
membership of professions that you do not have. See sig.
That you can support an unethical and vituperous lying creature such as
Jesness puts you quite clearly in the same league.
--
Peter
<To respond remove "getlost" from my address; minor spam block.>
In article <ELF5p...@iglou.com>, Tim Brown <bath...@iglou1.iglou.com>
writes
>Roger Williams <rog...@shell2.tiac.net> writes:
<snip>
>>I ask you again, Timbo, which state bar exam did you pass?
>
>None. I practice law on my own.
-
FOTCA
Brad I do not believe the things that you have been sayaing. I have stayed out
of this converstion, but have to say that I do not believe you are a
professional, I donot believe you see cloeints, and I worry about your role in
this list.
Please, see a therapist for your own good. Soon><HTML><PRE><BODY
BGCOLOR="#ffffff">Subject: Re: Bradnee: Opportunity to
>prove what you have claimed.
>From: good...@hotmail.com (Cognitee)
>Date: 28/01/98 04:19 GMT
>Message-id: <good_brad-270...@ts002d03.min-mn.concentric.net>
></PRE></HTML>
Cognitee
Dear fo...@aol.com,
Many things about me have been investigated and shown true by respected
people in this newsgroup. For one thing, it has been shown (as it even
says in the libelous "FAQ") that I am a college psychology instructor,
which makes me one type of professional in the field of psychology. This
has been investigated and shown to be true. As far as my other work as an
unlicensed mental health service provider, giving personality
inventories: I don't care if you believe me or not. I used to have an ad
in the Yellow Pages, though, BACK in 1993. Perhaps you could consult the
Minneapolis Yellow Pages 1993. My company is called Personal Explorations
(but I believe it weas listed under my name Brad Jesness back then).
There is proof available that I have been doing personality testing for
years (as a professional testing consultant). The Yellow Pages is about
the only proof you will find nowadays. It is no longer required by Minn.
law that unlicensed mental health service providers even register with the
State anymore. (Back when registration was required, we registered with a
certain public health office and **NOT** with the Board for licensed
psychologists. Unlicensed mental health service providers are NOT
normally overseen by the Licensing People and DO NOT normally come under
their jusrisdiction. Only when one claims or clearly indicates he is a
licensed person does the Board for Licensed Psychologists have any
jurisdiction. I have explained this to Dan Rogers before, but he does not
read what I said, is dull, and/or just likes to harass me.)
In article <19980128102...@ladder03.news.aol.com>, fo...@aol.com
Lorne D. Gilsig
Dear Brad,
I think you are streaching things a bit. You can not be a "part-time
professional" One is either a professional or one is not.
Now, we all know you don't teach full time, you teach a class here and
there. I would say this makes you more of a tradesman in the field of
psychology rather than a professional.
Being a tradesman is nothing to be ashamed of, nothing to lie about
either.
Lorne D. Gilsig
Beautywalk
Brad, it's so obvious that you have serious problems, especially keeping a
coherent and honest presentation of yourself and your ideas. Look at some of
these glaring inconsistancies and falsehoods you've spewed. You seem to be
caught up in your delusions of grandeur, and it's really getting frightening
and disgusting. Your posts are very revealing in that spelling, grammer, use of
caps, and phraseology make any attempt at anonymity on your part a joke. There
is a unique flavor to your writing that gives you away every time.
Any 'normal' or moderately self-aware person would have seen these things and
been humiliated beyond belief by now. So much so, they'd not dare show their
face around here again. But you keep going and going, like the energizer bunny.
I can't believe it.
Brad, it's all so obvious-- honestly. Your perseverance is incredible. What are
you going to do next? When does this end? In other words, this has been an
interesting case study, but it has become tiresome and harder to believe all
the time. Can we please get to the outcome?
FOTCA
Your posts contain references to buttocks, faeces and other items relating to
human waste and sexual function.
Tell me please, Mr Jesness, would you speak to your mother like this?
Would you speak to your brothers and sisters like theis?
Would you speak to clinets like thois?
If a psycholigist told you they spooke in news like this whwat would you think?
I know what I think. What do you think that I think?
I think youre not a psychologist, aidn that ;youre a nasty person. I think you
disrupt this list.
>BGCOLOR="#ffffff">Subject: Re: Bradnee: Opportunity to prove what you have
>claimed.
>From: good...@hotmail.com (Cognitee)
>Date: 28/01/98 14:57 GMT
>Message-id: <good_brad-280...@ts002d16.min-mn.concentric.net>
>> Please, see a therapist for your own good. Soon><BODY
Cognitee
Dear Lorne,
It is simply false that you cannot be a part time professional. Does
the ignorance here KNOW no bottom (no lower limit) ?? I have been a
full-time professional also (*and AM*). In any case I both have been and
AM a professional.
In article <34CF48...@earthlink.net>, "Lorne D. Gilsig"
Cognitee
P.S. Lorne,
I might add that many (if not most) clinical practitioners (in
psychology) are part-time in their clinical work !!! A very sizable
number teach part-time and do clinical work part-time.
Cognitee
Dear Beautywalk,
In March, I will have been in this newsgroup for three years.
In article <19980128165...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
Cognitee
Hell, you should have seen what Dan Rogers has said and done to me !!
(Then you might understand.) Dan's present behavior is simply
harassment. His questions have been reasonably answered (MORE THAN
ONCE). Rogers is an irrational, abusive, foul-mouthed bugger (maybe you
just haven't seen that yet).
In article <19980128170...@ladder03.news.aol.com>, fo...@aol.com
Joseph P. Arco
Cognitee wrote:
>
> Hell, you should have seen what Dan Rogers has said and done to me !!
> (Then you might understand.) Dan's present behavior is simply
> harassment. His questions have been reasonably answered (MORE THAN
> ONCE). Rogers is an irrational, abusive, foul-mouthed bugger (maybe you
> just haven't seen that yet).
Blaming & projecting again, Bradley Jesness!
Joseph P. Arco
Cognitee wrote:
>
> Dear Beautywalk,
> In March, I will have been in this newsgroup for three years.
...and so have the Fairy Godmothers.
Cognitee
Yes, Lelsie,
I am claiming I am still one.
(By the way are you still an "experimental psychologist" or just a
person that works for very little money with people with spasticity
problems ?? Perhaps many people here would say you are not a professional
!!! <<< LAUGHING >>>
If your "friends" used their same reasoning on you as they try to apply to
me, possibly you would not even be a professional in their eyes. Are you
full time ?? << LAUGHING HYSTERICALLY >>>
In article <34d6a121.77062274@news-server>, lpa...@nassau.cv.net wrote:
> good...@hotmail.com (Cognitee) wrote:
>
> >Dear fo...@aol.com,
> > Many things about me have been investigated and shown true by respected
> >people in this newsgroup. For one thing, it has been shown (as it even
> >says in the libelous "FAQ") that I am a college psychology instructor,
>
> The FAQ does not say that it has been shown that you are a college
> psychology instructor. It shows that at some point in the past, you
> were one. Are you claiming that you are still one and presently
> employed as such?
>
> >which makes me one type of professional in the field of psychology. This
> >has been investigated and shown to be true. As far as my other work as an
> >unlicensed mental health service provider, giving personality
> >inventories: I don't care if you believe me or not. I used to have an ad
> >in the Yellow Pages, though, BACK in 1993. Perhaps you could consult the
> >Minneapolis Yellow Pages 1993. My company is called Personal Explorations
> >(but I believe it weas listed under my name Brad Jesness back then).
> >There is proof available that I have been doing personality testing for
> >years (as a professional testing consultant).
>
> Then you have had and have a financial motivation to not refer people
> to licensed psychologists or licensed/registered MH service providers,
> as they can do what you do.
>
> So for all these years that you've been attacking licensed clinical
> psychologists, etc., you've had a HIDDEN motivation that is your
> financial pocket.
>
> So much for ethics, huh, Brad?
>
> >The Yellow Pages is about
> >the only proof you will find nowadays. It is no longer required by Minn.
> >law that unlicensed mental health service providers even register with the
> >State anymore. (Back when registration was required, we registered with a
> >certain public health office and **NOT** with the Board for licensed
> >psychologists. Unlicensed mental health service providers are NOT
> >normally overseen by the Licensing People and DO NOT normally come under
> >their jusrisdiction. Only when one claims or clearly indicates he is a
> >licensed person does the Board for Licensed Psychologists have any
> >jurisdiction. I have explained this to Dan Rogers before, but he does not
> >read what I said, is dull, and/or just likes to harass me.)
>
> Unfortunately, that may be true (that no one has any jurisdiction over
> you or other unlicensed mental health service providers). It's
> certainly the case in a lot of states that it is essentially 'consumer
> beware.'
>
> [snip]
Cognitee
Joe,
I apply blame where blame is due, just like Leslie Packer so very
crudely tries to do. I do it better. It is called responsibility, Joe,
though I know your kind likes to minimize all that (especially for
themselves). I hold people properly responsible, but I don't (like
Leslie) hold them responsible for making me happy and saying only what I
like !!!
In article <34CFCD...@jarco.mv.com>, "Joseph P. Arco"
<ja...@jarco.mv.com> wrote:
> Cognitee wrote:
> >
> > Hell, you should have seen what Dan Rogers has said and done to me !!
> > (Then you might understand.) Dan's present behavior is simply
> > harassment. His questions have been reasonably answered (MORE THAN
> > ONCE). Rogers is an irrational, abusive, foul-mouthed bugger (maybe you
> > just haven't seen that yet).
>
>
Joseph P. Arco
Cognitee wrote:
>
> Joe,
> I apply blame where blame is due, just like Leslie Packer so very
> crudely tries to do. I do it better. It is called responsibility, Joe,
> though I know your kind likes to minimize all that (especially for
> themselves). I hold people properly responsible, but I don't (like
> Leslie) hold them responsible for making me happy and saying only what I
> like !!!
>
> In article <34CFCD...@jarco.mv.com>, "Joseph P. Arco"
> <ja...@jarco.mv.com> wrote:
>
> > Cognitee wrote:
> > >
> > > (Then you might understand.) Dan's present behavior is simply
> > > harassment. His questions have been reasonably answered (MORE THAN
> > > ONCE). Rogers is an irrational, abusive, foul-mouthed bugger (maybe you
> > > just haven't seen that yet).
> >
> >
What you think of me, Bradley Jesness, is none of my business.
Cognitee
Indeed, Joe,
Taking responsibility for anything significant has been none of the
business of the vast majority of clinical psychologists in my view.
In article <34CFFB...@jarco.mv.com>, "Joseph P. Arco"
<ja...@jarco.mv.com> wrote:
> Cognitee wrote:
> >
> > Joe,
> > I apply blame where blame is due, just like Leslie Packer so very
> > crudely tries to do. I do it better. It is called responsibility, Joe,
> > though I know your kind likes to minimize all that (especially for
> > themselves). I hold people properly responsible, but I don't (like
> > Leslie) hold them responsible for making me happy and saying only what I
> > like !!!
> >
> > In article <34CFCD...@jarco.mv.com>, "Joseph P. Arco"
> > <ja...@jarco.mv.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Cognitee wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hell, you should have seen what Dan Rogers has said and done to me !!
> > > > (Then you might understand.) Dan's present behavior is simply
> > > > harassment. His questions have been reasonably answered (MORE THAN
> > > > ONCE). Rogers is an irrational, abusive, foul-mouthed bugger (maybe you
> > > > just haven't seen that yet).
> > >
> > >
Beautywalk
good...@hotmail.com wrote:
>Yes, Lelsie,
> I am claiming I am still one.
> (By the way are you still an "experimental psychologist" or just a
>person that works for very little money with people with spasticity
>problems ?? Perhaps many people here would say you are not a professional
>!!! <<< LAUGHING >>>
There you go again calling TS sufferers 'spastic.' You posted a few days ago
that you never did this. You lied, didn't you?
Just look at this post of yours, though. You 'claim' to be a professional, then
you 'do' what you do in the following words, obliterating your initial claim.
Kym
"Be patient toward all that is unresolved in your
heart, and try to love the questions themselves."
Rainer Maria Rilke
FOTCA
What have you done in your three years?
Why do you aggress women? Why do you swear? What is therape3uic about your
language? How professional is it?
FOTCA
Mr Jesness, I am again appalled.
You respond to my comments concerning your bad language and innuendlo with more
bad language. Mr Rogers has yet to callk you a b-gg-r, or am I wrojhng?
Oh Mr jesness, how could you?
Cognitee
Dear Kym,
Absolutely NOT. I am NOT referring to TS victims. Leslie Packer,
despite any appearances otherwise, DOES **NOT** work with TS clients in
her regular paid work. She works with brain-damaged individuals "with
spasticity" (THIS INFORMATION *and THESE WORDS* are from HER **OWN**
DESCRIPTION OF HER CLIENTS).
In article <19980129015...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
Cognitee
Dear FOTCA,
You certainly have a lot of questions that need answering. Why don't
you do what you probably have done throughout your life and run back to
"therapy" for answers (if you are not already IN IT as a permanent fixture
of a sick life).
In article <19980129105...@ladder03.news.aol.com>, fo...@aol.com
(FOTCA) wrote:
> What have you done in your three years?
>
> Why do you aggress women? Why do you swear? What is therape3uic about your
> language? How professional is it?
>
Cognitee
Dear Leslie,
I am not answering your questions about my present work, for obvious
reasons. You are CLEARLY a malicious, aggressive inappropriate thug. I
would suggest the same thing I suggested to Dan Rogers: Why don't you
weigh your feces for about a month and report back to us on how much it
weighs ???
<<< *** LAUGHING *** >>>>
Let's talk about the false and libelous "FAQ". Often the argument has
been put forth that "professionals sign their names." Also people who can
stand by their ideas and have confidence in them are said to sign their
names. I was persuaded over 2.5 years ago to come out of anonymity (I did
so mistakenly, not knowing what inappropriate thugs I was dealing with).
NOW, IRONICALLY, "Anonymous" posts what pretends to be some sort of
"objective" (or "credible" or "professional") reply against me AND DOES SO
ANONYMOUSLY (for NO apparently good reason). I have NO DOUBT that he is
one of the people who said I should sign my name, for the reasons just
described, now the filthy malicious, cowardly hypocrite does not sign his
own. This is nothing but a complet sh**bag. With all this in mind one
can only imagine how low this individual's credibility (except with you
biased sickos).
In article <34d1e784.95082999@news-server>, lpa...@nassau.cv.net wrote:
> good...@hotmail.com (Cognitee) wrote:
>
> >Yes, Lelsie,
> > I am claiming I am still one.
>
> You didn't answer my complete question. It read:
>
> "The FAQ does not say that it has been shown that you are a college
> psychology instructor. It shows that at some point in the past, you
> were one. Are you claiming that you are still one and presently
> employed as such?"
>
> I am repeating the question because in the past, you have been less
> than forthright by suggesting that because you held a title in the
> past, it entitled you to use it now. Answer the last part of the
> question: are you claiming that you are currently employed as a
> psychology instructor?
>
>
> [rest snipped]
Cognitee
Dear FOTCA,
I just did it again (with the filthy aggressor, Leslie !!). I used my
brain, my muscles, my computer, my keyboard, and my modem (and my damned
good judgment !!! There is nothing like a poignant analogy to make one's
point crystal clear !!!
In article <19980129105...@ladder02.news.aol.com>, fo...@aol.com
(FOTCA) wrote:
> Mr Jesness, I am again appalled.
>
> You respond to my comments concerning your bad language and innuendlo
with more
> bad language. Mr Rogers has yet to callk you a b-gg-r, or am I wrojhng?
>
> Oh Mr jesness, how could you?
>
Joseph P. Arco
Joseph P. Arco
Cognitee wrote:
>
> Dear Kym,
> Absolutely NOT. I am NOT referring to TS victims. Leslie Packer,
> despite any appearances otherwise, DOES **NOT** work with TS clients in
> her regular paid work. She works with brain-damaged individuals "with
> spasticity" (THIS INFORMATION *and THESE WORDS* are from HER **OWN**
> DESCRIPTION OF HER CLIENTS).
Yeah, 'right.
Cognitee
Lying or misleading again, Joe Arco. ANYTHING "FOR THE FIELD", RIGHT, JOE !!!
All this is indicative of the **abuse** that the *not uncommon* defensive,
over-reactive, self-serving, biased clinical psychologist is MORE THAN
capable. Rather than seeing such a person MANY (if not most) clients
would be better of throwing theiir money in a wishing well (MOST would be
better of if they believed in the wishing well and had a set of myths
associated with it !! -- for this is ALL they get from "therapy" with
such lousy persons).
In article <34D0CB...@jarco.mv.com>, "Joseph P. Arco"
Joseph P. Arco
Cognitee wrote:
>
> Lying or misleading again, Joe Arco. ANYTHING "FOR THE FIELD", RIGHT, JOE !!!
> All this is indicative of the **abuse** that the *not uncommon* defensive,
> over-reactive, self-serving, biased clinical psychologist is MORE THAN
> capable. Rather than seeing such a person MANY (if not most) clients
> would be better of throwing theiir money in a wishing well (MOST would be
> better of if they believed in the wishing well and had a set of myths
> associated with it !! -- for this is ALL they get from "therapy" with
> such lousy persons).
Projecting again, Bradley Jesness!
Cognitee
Nope. Would you care to try and elaborate your supposed view (or are you
using SUPPOSEDLY "magic" words, just as you so often do !!???) ??
In article <34D0DF...@jarco.mv.com>, "Joseph P. Arco"
FOTCA
Mr Jesness your judgment is poor.
><HTML><PRE><BODY BGCOLOR="#ffffff">Subject: Re: Bradnee: Opportunity to
>prove what you have claimed.
>From: good...@hotmail.com (Cognitee)
>Date: 29/01/98 14:42 GMT
>Message-id: <good_brad-290...@ts013d18.min-mn.concentric.net>
FOTCA
I see that I am your targtet. How sad.
Now I am to be a bad girl along with the other bads girls in this list.
Oh.
><HTML><PRE><BODY BGCOLOR="#ffffff">Subject: Re: Bradnee: Opportunity to
>prove what you have claimed.
>From: good...@hotmail.com (Cognitee)
>Date: 29/01/98 14:39 GMT
>Message-id: <good_brad-290...@ts013d18.min-mn.concentric.net>
>
>Dear FOTCA,
></PRE></HTML>
Cognitee
Dear Leslie,
I have NO hidden agenda. My point of view is fully supported by
research (and BY research that is lacking and needed). My point of view
is supported by a number of leaders in the clinical field !!
I wonder what service allowed hotmail to get through to a newsgroup
post? Please post the complete headers.
In article <34decdb7.42153134@news-server>, lpa...@nassau.cv.net wrote:
> The obvious reason being that you have misled people for several years
> about your hidden financial agenda in knocking professional therapists
> and professional psychologists. They are competition for you
> economically, but you weren't forthright about that and tried to
> present yourself as having other motivations without ever mentioning
> your financial interests in your attempts to influence the public.
>
> > You are CLEARLY a malicious, aggressive inappropriate thug. I
> >would suggest the same thing I suggested to Dan Rogers: Why don't you
> >weigh your feces for about a month and report back to us on how much it
> >weighs ???
>
> Is this how you practice being more like Jesus, Brad?
>
> How incongruent your posts are with your attempts or need to convince
> yourself and others that you are Good. Witness another one of your
> screen aliases, that you apparently only used for a test. It speaks
> volumes about how you need to see yourself or how desperate you are to
> convince others:
>
> ---------- begin copy --------
> Subject: test (don't read)
> From: "brad thegood" <good...@hotmail.com>
> Date: 1997/09/11
> Message-ID: <1997091115584...@hotmail.com>
> Newsgroups: alt.test
> [More Headers]
>
>
> test, sorry
> ------------ end copy --------
>
> >
> ><<< *** LAUGHING *** >>>>
> >
> You're still unbalanced. No surprise there.
>
> [rest snipped]
Cognitee
It is amazing how fast I can diagnose these things !!
In article <19980129185...@ladder02.news.aol.com>, fo...@aol.com
Tim McNamara
In article <good_brad-280...@ts010d22.min-mn.concentric.net>,
good...@hotmail.com (Cognitee) wrote:
> I am claiming I am still one.
> (By the way are you still an "experimental psychologist" or just a
>person that works for very little money with people with spasticity
>problems ?? Perhaps many people here would say you are not a professional
>!!! <<< LAUGHING >>>
Is there some sort of problem in working with people who can't afford to
pay full freight for mental health services, Brad? As a matter of fact,
the APA Ethical Guidelines suggest that psychologists should provide a
portion of their services at a reduced fee or pro bono. This is usually
directed towards people who can't afford mental health services otherwise.
I don't know what Leslie does as a psychologist, but my hat is off to her
if she is working with a special needs population with limited access to
services. This is an important aspect of the work of psychologists-
working for the good of the community as a whole, not just YAVIS clients.
The vast majority of my clients are also destitute and cannot afford to
pay out of pocket; their access to services is covered under various
social programs. Are you going to criticize me too for helping a
population that few others care about? Is that "unprofessional" in your
eyes? Is it a problem for you that I do not rate dollars above everything
else in the practice of my profession?
Once again you are demonstrating yourself to be a misanthrope- which is
*highly inappropriate* for someone who purports to be a mental health
services provider, licensed or not.
>If your "friends" used their same reasoning on you as they try to apply to
>me, possibly you would not even be a professional in their eyes. Are you
>full time ?? << LAUGHING HYSTERICALLY >>>
Professional is as professional does, Brad. If you are anything in person
like you are on the Internet, no one will ever mistake you for a
"professional."
--
All I leave behind me is only what I've found.
-Robert Hunter
Tim McNamara
In article <good_brad-290...@ts002d03.min-mn.concentric.net>,
good...@hotmail.com (Cognitee) wrote:
>Dear Leslie,
> I have NO hidden agenda. My point of view is fully supported by
>research (and BY research that is lacking and needed). My point of view
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>is supported by a number of leaders in the clinical field !!
Logical error. Your position cannot be supported by research that doesn't
exist. I do wish you'd take a class in logic. A little Aristotle might
be good for your soul. It would certainly improve the content of your
posts.
--
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
Leslie E. Packer, PhD
good...@hotmail.com (Cognitee) wrote:
>Dear Leslie,
> I have NO hidden agenda.
Sure you have. You witheld relevant information that might affect
the public's assessment of your statements and claims about
professional therapists and psychologists -- your economic
competition.
>My point of view is fully supported by
>research (and BY research that is lacking and needed).
IOW, you are claiming that your point of view is fully supported by
something that doesn't exist.
Would somebody (aka Peter), please save this post of his.... this is
too much! <laughing>
[snip]
> I wonder what service allowed hotmail to get through to a newsgroup
>post?
WHAT??? <doubled over laughing, tears streaming>
>Please post the complete headers.
IOW, you don't know how you post(ed) to news? <clutching the keyboard
so I don't fall off my chair from laughing>
[Oh God, we really need a CN award for you.... Phoenix: help!!!
Please, please, please, consider a CN award for someone who's been
around for a while and still doesn't know what the hell he's doing.]
Ya know, Brad, this is almost as good as the time you tried to send a
PPS to Peter about his repost of a cybercafe owner's post calling you
a paranoid schizophrenic. You thought you were being so smart and
even included a triumphant: "Thanks. I got yah !! Have agood
day." The only problem was that your post never made it to any of
the psych newsgroups, and mysteriously only appeared in alt.aol-sucks.
And I bet you wondered why no one answered you, huh? <laughing>
>
>
>In article <34decdb7.42153134@news-server>, lpa...@nassau.cv.net wrote:
>
>> good...@hotmail.com (Cognitee) wrote:
>>
>> >Dear Leslie,
followups set
Cognitee
Dear Tim,
Incorrect. A position surely can be shown by data that does not exist.
Positions that can be shown by the absense of data ususally begin with the
phrase: "It has NOT yet been shown whether (or not) ..." (Ring any bells
??)
It seems to me you are reasoning approximately like a three year old.
In article <timmcn-2901...@dialup-tc3-41.minn.net>,
tim...@minn.net (Tim McNamara) wrote:
> In article <good_brad-290...@ts002d03.min-mn.concentric.net>,
> good...@hotmail.com (Cognitee) wrote:
>
> >Dear Leslie,
Cognitee
Leslie,
I withheld NOTHING germane to my research-based, well-reasoned case !!
In article <3510ffd6.54985459@news-server>, lpa...@nassau.cv.net wrote:
> good...@hotmail.com (Cognitee) wrote:
>
> >Dear Leslie,
> > I have NO hidden agenda.
>
> Sure you have. You witheld relevant information that might affect
> the public's assessment of your statements and claims about
> professional therapists and psychologists -- your economic
> competition.
>
> >My point of view is fully supported by
> >research (and BY research that is lacking and needed).
>
> IOW, you are claiming that your point of view is fully supported by
> something that doesn't exist.
>
> Would somebody (aka Peter), please save this post of his.... this is
> too much! <laughing>
>
> [snip]
>
> > I wonder what service allowed hotmail to get through to a newsgroup
> >post?
>
> WHAT??? <doubled over laughing, tears streaming>
>
> >Please post the complete headers.
>
> IOW, you don't know how you post(ed) to news? <clutching the keyboard
> so I don't fall off my chair from laughing>
>
> [Oh God, we really need a CN award for you.... Phoenix: help!!!
> Please, please, please, consider a CN award for someone who's been
> around for a while and still doesn't know what the hell he's doing.]
>
> Ya know, Brad, this is almost as good as the time you tried to send a
> PPS to Peter about his repost of a cybercafe owner's post calling you
> a paranoid schizophrenic. You thought you were being so smart and
> even included a triumphant: "Thanks. I got yah !! Have agood
> day." The only problem was that your post never made it to any of
> the psych newsgroups, and mysteriously only appeared in alt.aol-sucks.
> And I bet you wondered why no one answered you, huh? <laughing>
>
> >
> >
> >In article <34decdb7.42153134@news-server>, lpa...@nassau.cv.net wrote:
> >
> >> good...@hotmail.com (Cognitee) wrote:
> >>
> >> >Dear Leslie,
Cognitee
Tim,
What I was describing is what Leslie describes as her regular PAID job
(or the closest thing she has to one):
In article <timmcn-2901...@dialup-tc3-41.minn.net>,
tim...@minn.net (Tim McNamara) wrote:
Beautywalk
good...@hotmail.com (Cognitee) wrote:
>Dear FOTCA,
> I just did it again (with the filthy aggressor, Leslie !!). I used my
>brain, my muscles, my computer, my keyboard, and my modem (and my damned
>good judgment !!! There is nothing like a poignant analogy to make one's
>point crystal clear !!!
>
He used everything but his moral rudder, since that has been, ahem, lost for a
while now.
>In article <19980129105...@ladder02.news.aol.com>, fo...@aol.com
>(FOTCA) wrote:
>
>> Mr Jesness, I am again appalled.
>>
>> You respond to my comments concerning your bad language and innuendlo
>with more
>> bad language. Mr Rogers has yet to callk you a b-gg-r, or am I wrojhng?
>>
>> Oh Mr jesness, how could you?
>>
>> >Hell, you should have seen what Dan Rogers has said and done to me !!
>> >(Then you might understand.) Dan's present behavior is simply
>> >harassment. His questions have been reasonably answered (MORE THAN
>> >ONCE). Rogers is an irrational, abusive, foul-mouthed bugger (maybe you
>> >just haven't seen that yet).
>> >
Kym
Beautywalk
Yes, you were, Brad. C'mon, fess up. Quit playing dumb. <g>
"Joseph P. Arco" <ja...@jarco.mv.com> wrote:
>Cognitee wrote:
>>
>> Dear Kym,
>> Absolutely NOT. I am NOT referring to TS victims. Leslie Packer,
>> despite any appearances otherwise, DOES **NOT** work with TS clients in
>> her regular paid work. She works with brain-damaged individuals "with
>> spasticity" (THIS INFORMATION *and THESE WORDS* are from HER **OWN**
>> DESCRIPTION OF HER CLIENTS).
>
>
>Yeah, 'right.
Cognitee
I stand by my statement. I assure you that if it were not true, we would
have heard from Ms. Leslie Packer by now !!
In article <19980130011...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
FOTCA
You diangnose over the intenet?
You don't do it very well. Otherres can testify to this.
Felicity.
>HTML><PRE><BODY BGCOLOR="#ffffff">Subject: Re: Bradnee: Opportunity to prove
>what you have claimed.
>From: good...@hotmail.com (Cognitee)
>Date: 29/01/98 20:56 GMT
>Message-id: <good_brad-290...@ts002d03.min-mn.concentric.net>
FOTCA
>ubject: Re: Bradnee: Opportunity to prove what you have claimed.
>Date: 30/01/98 01:14 GMT
>Message-id: <19980130011...@ladder02.news.aol.com>
>
>good...@hotmail.com (Cognitee) wrote:
>
>>Dear FOTCA,
>> I just did it again (with the filthy aggressor, Leslie !!). I used my
>>brain, my muscles, my computer, my keyboard, and my modem (and my damned
>>good judgment !!! There is nothing like a poignant analogy to make one's
>>point crystal clear !!!
>>
>
>He used everything but his moral rudder, since that has been, ahem, lost for
>a
>while now.
That does sound very painful to me. My husband winced when we read that!
>>In article <19980129105...@ladder02.news.aol.com>, fo...@aol.com
>>(FOTCA) wrote:
>>
>>> Mr Jesness, I am again appalled.
>>>
>>> You respond to my comments concerning your bad language and innuendlo
>>with more
>>> bad language. Mr Rogers has yet to callk you a b-gg-r, or am I wrojhng?
>>>
>>> Oh Mr jesness, how could you?
>>>
>>> >Hell, you should have seen what Dan Rogers has said and done to me !!
>>> >(Then you might understand.) Dan's present behavior is simply
>>> >harassment. His questions have been reasonably answered (MORE THAN
>>> >ONCE). Rogers is an irrational, abusive, foul-mouthed bugger (maybe you
>>> >just haven't seen that yet).
>>> >
>
>
>
FOTCA
We have heard from Leslie though. leslie seems reasonable.
You don't./ All you can do is laugh hysterically and falsely diangnose bvy
modem.
Felicity.
>HTML><PRE><BODY BGCOLOR="#ffffff">Subject: Re: Bradnee: Opportunity to prove
>what you have claimed.
>From: good...@hotmail.com (Cognitee)
>Date: 30/01/98 02:05 GMT
>Message-id: <good_brad-290...@ts006d13.min-mn.concentric.net>
>
>I stand by my statement. I assure you that if it were not true, we would
>have heard from Ms. Leslie Packer by now !!
>
>In article <19980130011...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
>beaut...@aol.com (Beautywalk) wrote:
>
>> Yes, you were, Brad. C'mon, fess up. Quit playing dumb. <g>
>>
>> "Joseph P. Arco" <ja...@jarco.mv.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Cognitee wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Dear Kym,
>> >> Absolutely NOT. I am NOT referring to TS victims. Leslie Packer,
>> >> despite any appearances otherwise, DOES **NOT** work with TS clients in
>> >> her regular paid work. She works with brain-damaged individuals "with
>> >> spasticity" (THIS INFORMATION *and THESE WORDS* are from HER **OWN**
>> >> DESCRIPTION OF HER CLIENTS).
>> >
>> >
>> >Yeah, 'right.
>>
>>
>>
>>
Cognitee
Dear FOTCA (Felicity):
I suggest you learn how to do a Deja search and FIND OUT what Dan
Rogers has called me instead of guessing blindly.
In article <19980130074...@ladder02.news.aol.com>, fo...@aol.com
(FOTCA) wrote:
> >ubject: Re: Bradnee: Opportunity to prove what you have claimed.
Beautywalk
fo...@aol.com (FOTCA) wrote:
>You diangnose over the intenet?
>
>You don't do it very well. Otherres can testify to this.
>
>Felicity.
>
>>HTML>Subject: Re: Bradnee: Opportunity to prove
>>what you have claimed.
>>From: good...@hotmail.com (Cognitee)
>>Date: 29/01/98 20:56 GMT
>>Message-id: <good_brad-290...@ts002d03.min-mn.concentric.net>
>>
Brad, I doubt your ability to diagnose. Your delusional system and prejudice
would get in the way.
Yesterday in class, my 'instructor' (who happens to be a PhD and plubished
author, btw) gave us a brief written assessment with which to diagnose on all 5
axes. I played along-- from the hx one could ascertain that this man was
certainly an alcoholic and that he displayed certain paranoid characteristics.
We argued about whether to put depression in axis one, since it so often
accompanies alcoholism (and many times paranoid traits, as well.) even though
there was no mention of depressive sx in the paper. I can only imagine what the
class would be like if you were teaching it.
>>It is amazing how fast I can diagnose these things !!
>>
>>In article <19980129185...@ladder02.news.aol.com>, fo...@aol.com
>>(FOTCA) wrote:
>>
>>> I see that I am your targtet. How sad.
Don't worry Fliss; in his own cute way, I think he likes you.
>>>
>>> Now I am to be a bad girl along with the other bads girls in this list.
>>>
>>> Oh.
>>>
FOTCA
This worries me. What will my man say?
Leslie E. Packer, PhD
good...@hotmail.com (Cognitee) wrote:
>Leslie,
> I withheld NOTHING germane to my research-based, well-reasoned case !!
Nothing except the fact that the people you have been attacking are
your economic competitors.
[snip]
Peter
In article <good_brad-290...@ts013d18.min-mn.concentric.net>,
Cognitee <good...@hotmail.com> writes
>Dear FOTCA,
> You certainly have a lot of questions that need answering. Why don't
>you do what you probably have done throughout your life and run back to
>"therapy" for answers (if you are not already IN IT as a permanent fixture
>of a sick life).
If she's in therapy good on her. At least she's succeeding in her
attempts to be more balanced than you, Professor of Lopsided Luaghing.
Thanks for the 3rd faeces post. Can I have another, please? Three's
unbalanced, and quite clearly a crowd.
>In article <19980129105...@ladder03.news.aol.com>, fo...@aol.com
>(FOTCA) wrote:
>
>> What have you done in your three years?
>>
>> Why do you aggress women? Why do you swear? What is therape3uic about your
>> language? How professional is it?
>>
>> >Dear Beautywalk,
>> > In March, I will have been in this newsgroup for three years.
>> >
--
Peter
<To respond remove "getlost" from my address; minor spam block.>
In article <good_brad-290...@ts013d18.min-mn.concentric.net>,
Cognitee <good...@hotmail.com> writes
>Dear Leslie,
> I am not answering your questions about my present work, for obvious
>reasons. You are CLEARLY a malicious, aggressive inappropriate thug. I
Peter
I'll be happy to place a FAQ on you at my forthcoming web site.
Be warned. I am nothing if not thorough. You will find yourself most
upset, oh Venal One.
In article <good_brad-290...@ts013d18.min-mn.concentric.net>,
Cognitee <good...@hotmail.com> writes
>Dear Leslie,
> I am not answering your questions about my present work, for obvious
>reasons. You are CLEARLY a malicious, aggressive inappropriate thug. I
>would suggest the same thing I suggested to Dan Rogers: Why don't you
>weigh your feces for about a month and report back to us on how much it
>weighs ???
>
><<< *** LAUGHING *** >>>>
>
> Let's talk about the false and libelous "FAQ". Often the argument has
>been put forth that "professionals sign their names." Also people who can
>stand by their ideas and have confidence in them are said to sign their
>names. I was persuaded over 2.5 years ago to come out of anonymity (I did
>so mistakenly, not knowing what inappropriate thugs I was dealing with).
>NOW, IRONICALLY, "Anonymous" posts what pretends to be some sort of
>"objective" (or "credible" or "professional") reply against me AND DOES SO
>ANONYMOUSLY (for NO apparently good reason). I have NO DOUBT that he is
>one of the people who said I should sign my name, for the reasons just
>described, now the filthy malicious, cowardly hypocrite does not sign his
>own. This is nothing but a complet sh**bag. With all this in mind one
>can only imagine how low this individual's credibility (except with you
>biased sickos).
>
>
>In article <34d1e784.95082999@news-server>, lpa...@nassau.cv.net wrote:
>
>> good...@hotmail.com (Cognitee) wrote:
>>
>> >Yes, Lelsie,
>> > I am claiming I am still one.
>>
>> You didn't answer my complete question. It read:
>>
>> "The FAQ does not say that it has been shown that you are a college
>> psychology instructor. It shows that at some point in the past, you
>> were one. Are you claiming that you are still one and presently
>> employed as such?"
>>
>> I am repeating the question because in the past, you have been less
>> than forthright by suggesting that because you held a title in the
>> past, it entitled you to use it now. Answer the last part of the
>> question: are you claiming that you are currently employed as a
>> psychology instructor?
>>
>>
>> [rest snipped]
Peter
In article <good_brad-290...@ts002d03.min-mn.concentric.net>,
Cognitee <good...@hotmail.com> writes
> I wonder what service allowed hotmail to get through to a newsgroup
<head shaking>
I am s-p-e-e-c-h-l-e-s-s.
--
Peter
<To respond remove "getlost" from my address; minor spam block.>
In article <good_brad-201...@ts001d17.min-mn.concentric.net>, Cognitee
<good...@hotmail.com> writes
>I Believe my favorite "alias" was "A Better Copy" !!! <<laughing>>
Peter
In article <good_brad-290...@ts002d18.min-mn.concentric.net>,
Cognitee <good...@hotmail.com> writes
>Dear Tim,
> Incorrect. A position surely can be shown by data that does not exist.
>Positions that can be shown by the absense of data ususally begin with the
>phrase: "It has NOT yet been shown whether (or not) ..." (Ring any bells
>??)
The only thing that nothing can show is nothing. Out of your nothing
nothing can be inferred.
Martin Heidegger once said something to the effect that 'nothing noths'.
Similarly, Bardley Bards.
Actually, since your operation that should read "TaBards". <vbg>
>It seems to me you are reasoning approximately like a three year old.
>
>In article <timmcn-2901...@dialup-tc3-41.minn.net>,
>tim...@minn.net (Tim McNamara) wrote:
>
>> In article <good_brad-290...@ts002d03.min-mn.concentric.net>,
>> good...@hotmail.com (Cognitee) wrote:
>>
>> >Dear Leslie,
>> > I have NO hidden agenda. My point of view is fully supported by
>> >research (and BY research that is lacking and needed). My point of view
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> >is supported by a number of leaders in the clinical field !!
>>
>> Logical error. Your position cannot be supported by research that doesn't
>> exist. I do wish you'd take a class in logic. A little Aristotle might
>> be good for your soul. It would certainly improve the content of your
>> posts.
>>
>> --
>> 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
--
Peter
<To respond remove "getlost" from my address; minor spam block.>
In article <good_brad-240...@ts013d08.min-mn.concentric.net>
Good Bard wrote:
> Dear sw,
<snip>
> regards, bard jesness, college psychology and counseling instructor
Cognitee
Peter,
"Nothing" can point up the lack of something needed or desired. This
very well maybe something that should be sought (for understanding or good
adaptation), and may well be something that is as important to survival
*to seek out* as most anything that that exists already (physically) and
is sensed and desired. (All this is assuming you are an intelligent
creature).
Just like much of what humans (presumably intelligent creatures) do is
**not-doing** (i.e. restraining themselves from immediately responding, to
allow more integration and higher integration of material), so there is
sense to be found in what is lacking but should be or should be found.
Actually, this is true for even primitive creatures (like you, Peter).
Perhaps you belief a hungry animal should not search for food unless he
sees food ??
All this fits with the idea that crutial links in knowledge should be
found for good understanding. Showing the lack of basic foundation data
is pointing up something important. A "position" can indeed stem form the
lack of data.
In article <p4heheBF...@wharton.demon.co.uk>, Peter
Jamie E. Eimermann
In article <19980130135...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
Beautywalk <beaut...@aol.com> wrote:
>fo...@aol.com (FOTCA) wrote:
>
>Yesterday in class, my 'instructor' (who happens to be a PhD and plubished
>author, btw) gave us a brief written assessment with which to diagnose on all 5
>axes. I played along-- from the hx one could ascertain that this man was
>certainly an alcoholic and that he displayed certain paranoid characteristics.
>We argued about whether to put depression in axis one, since it so often
>accompanies alcoholism (and many times paranoid traits, as well.) even though
>there was no mention of depressive sx in the paper. I can only imagine what the
>class would be like if you were teaching it.
Ah, but think what it would be like if you were diagnosing him! You'd
be spoiled for choice.
Jamie
Dan L. Rogers, Ph.D.
In other words, you can't prove any of it. None. Zero.
All you prove is that when someone posts a reasonable, polite
description of how you can prove your point, you can only spew
vulgarities and immaturities.
You aren't being harassed. You are being called out.
Accept the challenge. Prove what you have claimed. I have
an open mind, just give facts that support your claims.
The challenge is there. Just prove it instead of resorting
to defensive vulgarity.
Cognitee wrote:
> Dear Dan Rogers,
> Thanks for the "opportunity". I decline **AGAIN**. Kiss my buttocks.
> Let me know when you have provided proof of your U.S. citizenship or stop
> voting. And, make sure to weigh your feces for a month and let us know
> how much it weighs. (<-- Get my point; these parallel your requests.
> Your requests are not normal and your are getting into personal data more
> than you have any business to.) I owe you NO information whatsoever. I
> am obliged only to provide information to my clients.
>
> DAN, THIS SHALL ALWAYS BE MY ANSWER TO YOUR RUDE REQUESTS, WHICH
> CONSTITUTE HARASSMENT *AT THIS POINT* BECAUSE I HAVE SAID REPEATEDLY THAT
> I WILL NOT TROUBLE MYSELF TO GO TO EXTRAORDINARY LENGTHS TO PROVIDE YOU
> "PROOF" OF ANYTHING. *Maybe* after you prove your citizenship by posting
> a notorized copy of your birth certificate, I will reconsider. Right now
> I believe you are a lobotomized Nazi fugitive from Hitler's Germany. I
> HAVE INFORMED YOU THAT I SHALL NO MORE PROVE TO YOU MY RIGHTS THAN YOU
> WILL PROVE TO ME YOUR U.S. CITIZENSHIP. AND I WILL NO MORE GIVE YOU
> INFORMATION ON MY PERSONAL AFFAIRS AND BUSINESS THAN YOU WILL WEIGH YOUR
> FECES. CLEAR??
>
> You raise doubt against me on NO decent basis whatseoever. I have
> informed you of the facts. Take legal action with appropriate
authorities
> if you don't believe me. But, stop harassing me and this newsgroup.
> "Dan L. Rogers, Ph.D." wrote:
>
> > This is a wacko response on your part. Just plain silly.
> >
> > You have not answered the questions with anything other than
> > unsupported claims. It is up to you to prove your claims.
> >
> > To wit:
> >
> > 1. You claimed that you have registered (your word) your use of
> > psychological tests (or personality tests) for pay with state
> > authorities. Please post a copy of this registration or the state
> > official or agency with whom you registered.
> >
> > 2. You claim that you have cleared your use and possession
> > of such tests with licensing boards. Please post a copy of
> > their statements to that effect. (Note: No licensing board will
> > give a verbal answer to such a question.)
> >
> > 3. You claim that publishers of the tests have accepted your
> > qualifications. Please post a copy of your application or statement
> > of qualifications to NCS, the publisher of the MMPI.
> >
> > Or, just settle this all: Email the Minnesota Psychology Licensing
> > Board and cc this usenet group. In this email, ask the MN Board
> > for an official opinion regarding whether or not you are, according
> > to Minnesota law, allowed to administer personality tests (such as
> > the MMPI) for pay or not for pay, either one.
> >
> > Now, your response is likely to be a) that you really did not say
> > any of this, and b) that you don't have to prove a thing.
> > No scientist would respond in such a manner. I and others
> > have offered you a strictly logical, scientific manner in which
> > to end the dispute.
> >
> > If you do not provide this information, then you will have acknowledged
> > that you are unable to do so. And that means that you have lied
> > all along.
> > I am repeating the following post from a couple of weeks ago, since
> > bradnee has avoided it so far. bradnee has made claims that he
> > can prove, easily. If he does prove them, as noted below, then I'll
> > be at the head of the line to say that I and we have all been wrong,
> > that he is, indeed, qualified.
> >
> > If bradnee cannot meet these simple proofs, well ...
bradnee had earlier written
>>>If you think that I
> > > am incorrect *and* not in accord with the law and want to stop me It
is
> > > IN FACT YOU that must prove it. In our society the accuser must
prove a
> > > case.
and Dan Rogers had replied:
> > That is not true. A prosecutor must prove the case. I and others have
> > merely
> > challenged your claims. In such a situation, the one with the claims
has
> > the burden of proof.
> >
> > Quit your rudeness and prove what you have claimed. You made the
> > assertions, now prove them.
>
Cognitee
You require no proof for our relationship and I owe you none.
But try the 1993 Minneapolis Yellow Pages under my name: my business is
described there !!
P.S. How much do your feces weigh so far? When are you going to prove
your U.S. citizenship? I don't think I will believe you should vote until
you do. Perhaps I should periodically posts requests for this
information. I do not believe you are a citizen of the U.S. and I want
people to know that if you were voting (and I think you might well be)
this is wrong. Let's say this is my position and my position also is that
I think I only have the right and duty to continue to post my requests on
this matter. What's you view of this Dan Rogers ??? I am giving you an
"opportunity" to prove yourself. (Personally I believe you are a Nazi who
feld Hitler's Germany and entered the country under a false name. I have
no information that would lead me to believe otherwise !! Will you
please provide PROOF ?? THIS IS EXACTLY YOUR POSITION, DAN ROGERS. Of
course, I am kidding -- about the proof anyway, about the Nazi stuff I'm
not sure ...)
In article <01bd2e73$851e15a0$28a282d1@oemcomputer>, "Dan L. Rogers,
Dan L. Rogers, Ph.D.
Your post is thought disordered. And vulgar.
Can't you produce any proof of your claims? You have
never, ever, proved any of your claims made on news groups.
Never.
All you do is respond with profanity and vulgarity. That shows
an absolute lack of content.
Again, I challenge you to produce the proof of your claims.
It would be very easy, would not reveal any very private information,
and would put a lot of other people out to pasture.
Respond with proof, not your tasteless and immature vulgarity.
Your sophomoric questions can be answered by looking me up
in the APA member directory. But your questions are silly.
Cognitee <good...@hotmail.com> wrote in article
<good_brad-310...@ts004d15.min-mn.concentric.net>...
A Student of Life
Dan,
I, for one, agree with all that you have said. And, I, also
appreciate your new style in communicating with the Bradnee.
I have noticed it doesn't seem to matter to Mr Jesness, as he will
respond in his same style always. But, I appreciate your attempt.
Deb B
Cognitee
Dan,
Can't you produce proof of your citizenship? If not, Dan stop voting.
And, how is the weighing of your feces coming along? This is all an exact
analogy of what you are asking me. You are asking what you don't need to
for our relationship and what you have no right to and you are being very
personal (needlessly and insultingly).
In article <01bd2eb9$b3cfa800$34a282d1@oemcomputer>, "Dan L. Rogers,
Cognitee
As far as we know Dan Rogers is an ill-mannered teenager who likes to
harass a person who all know is a college instructor. We know nothing of
Dan. He has proven NOTHING about who or what he is.
In article <6b0orh$q...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>,
always-...@somewhere.in.life (A Student of Life) wrote:
> Dan,
>
> I, for one, agree with all that you have said. And, I, also
> appreciate your new style in communicating with the Bradnee.
>
> I have noticed it doesn't seem to matter to Mr Jesness, as he will
> respond in his same style always. But, I appreciate your attempt.
>
> Deb B
>
Tim McNamara
In article <good_brad-010...@ts004d19.min-mn.concentric.net>,
good...@hotmail.com (Cognitee) wrote:
>As far as we know Dan Rogers is an ill-mannered teenager who likes to
>harass a person who all know is a college instructor. We know nothing of
>Dan. He has proven NOTHING about who or what he is.
We don't "all know" that you are a college instructor. We only know that
you have *claimed* to be a college instructor- yet you offer no evidence
of this. You appear to have confused "claim" with "proof."
I think that what we *all* know (except you) is that you are a small
minded, vulgar person who has adopted the pathetic role of Internet
troll. You attack psychologists, clients, bystanders, even supporters...
alienating everyone. You stand alone in this small, small world of the
Internet. Alone and largely ignored, since your verbal projectile
diarrhea is not worth paying a lot of attention to.
--
Reach out your hand if your cup is empty;
if your cup is full, may it be again.
-Robert Hunter
Cognitee
Someone tracted down some proof of me being an instructor (as indicated in
that so-called libelous "FAQ"). It was Bernhardt, I think.
In article <timmcn-0102...@dialup-tc2-9.minn.net>,
Peter
In article <good_brad-310...@ts004d15.min-mn.concentric.net>,
Cognitee <good...@hotmail.com> writes
<snip>
>But try the 1993 Minneapolis Yellow Pages under my name: my business is
>described there !!
...and the 1997->1998 Minneapolis Yellow Pages?
--
Peter
In article <4cicid$5...@cu.comp-unltd.com>, <Unbridled Capitalism>
B Jesness <spa...@imt.net> writes
>The "therapy" establishment (notably including the educational system
>with its notable gaps in research endeavors) is biased by $ interests
>and in apparent ways does not serve society (people).
Peter
In article <good_brad-010...@ts013d06.min-mn.concentric.net>,
Cognitee <good...@hotmail.com> writes
>Someone tracted down some proof of me being an instructor (as indicated in
>that so-called libelous "FAQ"). It was Bernhardt, I think.
That was *then*. What of *now*?
--
Peter
<To respond remove "getlost" from my address; minor spam block.>
In article <50muq5$o...@antares.en.com>, Cognitee
<na57...@anon.penet.fi> writes
>Dear Readers:
<snip>
>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
Cognitee
Nope. Paid them only one year for an ad. So successful dodn't need any
more ads in the Yellow Pages.
In article <DNFEsXAS...@wharton.demon.co.uk>, Peter
<Pe...@getlostwharton.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <good_brad-310...@ts004d15.min-mn.concentric.net>,
> Cognitee <good...@hotmail.com> writes
> <snip>
> >But try the 1993 Minneapolis Yellow Pages under my name: my business is
> >described there !!
Cognitee
Once a doctor always a doctor (assuming nothing untoward); once an
instructor, always an instructor. You need no proof of my present job.
In article <B9nEAbAZ...@wharton.demon.co.uk>, Peter
Nancy Alvarado, Ph.D.
On 1 Feb 1998, Cognitee wrote:
> As far as we know Dan Rogers is an ill-mannered teenager who likes to
> harass a person who all know is a college instructor. We know nothing of
> Dan. He has proven NOTHING about who or what he is.
I don't know you're a college instructor. Please post the name of the
institution where you are currently teaching so we can verify it.
Nancy
Cognitee
Never EVER in a million years, Nancy, would I say were I was working (with
rabid psychopaths like Peter Hood out there). Bernhardt, however, did
verify I once was a college instructor somewhere. That's all you need to
know.
In article <Pine.LNX.3.95.98020...@psy.ucsd.edu>, "Nancy
John Clark
Nancy Alvarado, Ph.D. wrote:
> On 1 Feb 1998, Cognitee wrote:
>
> > As far as we know Dan Rogers is an ill-mannered teenager who likes to
> > harass a person who all know is a college instructor. We know nothing of
> > Dan. He has proven NOTHING about who or what he is.
>
> I don't know you're a college instructor. Please post the name of the
> institution where you are currently teaching so we can verify it.
Of course Dan Rogers could be an U of I AI joke that got out of hand... I
mean why presume that Dan's human at all.
On the other hand perhaps Brad is a sophmoric version of
an AI program to score Missing Mental Patient's Inventory
and has gone amuck.
Jamie E. Eimermann
In article <good_brad-310...@ts004d15.min-mn.concentric.net>,
Cognitee <good...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>You require no proof for our relationship and I owe you none.
>
>But try the 1993 Minneapolis Yellow Pages under my name: my business is
>described there !!
What heading were you listed under? Pyschologists? Testing? We've
got some old phone books for out of state areas at the library.
Jamie
Leslie E. Packer, PhD
On 2 Feb 1998 21:31:11 GMT, , good...@hotmail.com (Cognitee) wrote:
>Once a doctor always a doctor (assuming nothing untoward); once an
>instructor, always an instructor.
If you are not employed as one, it is misleading the public to assert
that you are one since you would not be currently employed instructing
anyone.
But that goes along with your claims that you are a developmental
psychologist, I suppose.
>You need no proof of my present job.
Actually, since you have attempted to use these newsgroups to solicit
business (scoring and interpreting tests), attempts to mislead about
your credentials are even more serious.
Cognitee
Dear Leslie,
Whether or not I am teaching at present would NOT affect my credentials
(except possibly as conveniently and falsely construed in your own mind,
Leslie).
I have mislead NO ONE **EVER** about my activities or credentials. As
such, I am in good standing with any and all ethical principles. (It is
VERY debateable though, LESLIE, whether YOUR blind accusations and
innuendo are ethical. I say they are NOT. All your "worries" and
complaints about me are groundless. I see you as engaging in nothing but
malicious mischief, that serves no one except possibly YOU in some warped
way -- it serves the "bad" irrational you.)
In article <34e27a9a.61495144@news-server>,
Cognitee
I have found it a stretch at times to consider Dan a normal human with
normal faculties.
Cognitee
I am listed under my name (you know that now don't you ?).
In article <6b6bhb$h...@tekka.wwa.com>, j...@news.wwa.com (Jamie E.
Eimermann) wrote:
> In article <good_brad-310...@ts004d15.min-mn.concentric.net>,
> Cognitee <good...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >You require no proof for our relationship and I owe you none.
> >
> >But try the 1993 Minneapolis Yellow Pages under my name: my business is
> >described there !!
>
Cognitee
Oh, I get it, Jamie. Sorry. I think I am under "counseling" *or*
"personal services" Check the index under "counseling" and under
"personal services" to get to the specific heading I would be under.
Thanks.
In article <6b6bhb$h...@tekka.wwa.com>, j...@news.wwa.com (Jamie E.
Eimermann) wrote:
> In article <good_brad-310...@ts004d15.min-mn.concentric.net>,
> Cognitee <good...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >You require no proof for our relationship and I owe you none.
> >
> >But try the 1993 Minneapolis Yellow Pages under my name: my business is
> >described there !!
>