tracking email addresses
nojun...@this.address
Leslie < here is a resource regarding how to track an email address:
http://digital.net/~gandalf/spamfaq.html
this will help you sort out when it is brad posting to newsgroups so
that he can't deny it is him. it will also help with the anonymous
email he is sending and denying he sends.
Diane
(I use the false header address to block automated junk mail programs and it works)
Cognitee
Dear Diane,
I am sending NO E-MAIL WHATSOEVER to you or Ms. Packer. I e-mail NO ONE
who has indicated they don't want any. I have always abided by this rule
(but for a couple of accidents in the distant past). If you have any
e-mail indeed they must be forgeries. Thanks for the help that will sort
anything out that is going on. It does not involve me.
In article <3220b486...@news.mont.mindspring.com>,
nojun...@this.address
On 25 Aug 1996 20:42:26 GMT, an57...@anon.penet.fi (Cognitee) wrote:
>Dear Diane,
> I am sending NO E-MAIL WHATSOEVER to you or Ms. Packer. I e-mail NO ONE
>who has indicated they don't want any. I have always abided by this rule
>(but for a couple of accidents in the distant past). If you have any
>e-mail indeed they must be forgeries.
my postmaster and my technologically literate friends can tell the
difference betweeen a forgery and an actual mailing from you. Little
do you know but you invariably leave a foot print everytime you post;
Even when you send anonymous mail to me through future.net.
When you began your harassment of me last year as BADBRAD and BRADLEE
and various other names I only contacted AOL and than left this
newsgroup...but now that you have begun again
you have now been reported to:
AOL
APA
future.net
the Minnesota Psychological Association
the Minnesota Board of Psychology Examiners
TIES (for using one of their accts)
my attorney is in the process of identifying which , if any, community
college system employs you.
As you refuse to stop contacting me and have now begun mailing to the
postm...@perrystreet.com, I will not hesitate to report you to your
employer if you do not stop contacting me or anyone connected with me.
Diane
Cognitee
Dear Diane,
I also DEFINITELY never had the address of BRA...@aol.com You and
your people better get technically better; a forger is on the loose. I
hope you don't suffer much. I will provide you with whatever help I can.
You have definitely gotten NO MAIL from me through future.net. Similarly
NOT A SINGLE PIECE OF E-MAIL HAS COME TO ME FROM TIES OR AOL. NONE
WHATSOEVER. NOR have I mailed you at all since many MONTHS ago, if at all
(I don't recall back to then). If I did e-mail you in the distant past,
it was 2 or three notes at most (I DON'T EVEN RECALL). You may write
(e-mail) to me for any information that may help track down the present
culprit.
I did e-mail your service when they wrote me accusing me of e-mailing
you. I told them I have not AT ALL NOT ONE PIECE OF E-MAIL. NOT
***ONE*** from any of my services.
It is my guess that someone else has objected to some of your hostile
and inappropriate tacts.
THEY ARE NOW RESPONDING INAPPROPRIATELY AND I DO NOT APPROVE.
I guess I may be mistaken (but it is unlikely): You will soon find out
if I am wrong, but I believe Diane (nojunkmail@this address) is the same
Diane as DKU:
d...@perrystreet.com (dku)
P.S. Diane,
Make sure your attorney makes no accusations about me that are false.
I have sent you no e-mail in many many months WHATSOEVER. I DO NOT
CLEARLY RECALL EVER SENDING YOU E-MAIL.
In article <3220bde4...@news.mont.mindspring.com>,
nojun...@this.address
On 25 Aug 1996 22:49:42 GMT, an57...@anon.penet.fi (Cognitee) wrote:
>I have sent you no e-mail in many many months WHATSOEVER. I DO NOT
>CLEARLY RECALL EVER SENDING YOU E-MAIL.
1. you can't admit in one breath that you emailed me months ago and
that you NEVER emailed me. You have emailed me three times in the last
two days.
2. i am not hiding under dozens of names brad. of course i put
nojunkmail in my header and i do it for for that express purpose. I
have never hidden my identity nor have i pretended to be another while
holding delusional conversations with myself.
3. i am tired of your rampant stupidity. The next time i respond to
you it will because you contacted me or my postmaster and it will be
in the form of a lawsuit. This is not a threat, it is a formal
warning. You and all your future names will go into a kill file.
until this group becomes moderated by some one sane like John Grohol
i will cease to participate
diane unterspan
Cognitee
Dear Diane,
I e-mailed you ZERO times in the last 6 months.
In article <3220daeb...@news.mont.mindspring.com>,
Cognitee
Well Diane,
Several months ago there was someone who cxalled herself "D." Was that
you? I may have written that person 2 or 3 times MANY months ago. If
this is not you, I possibly have never e-mailed you.
By the way: Are you having a psychotic breakdown?
Cognitee
Since I have sent you no e-mail under any account I use, you should be
contacting NO ONE. If I would ever meet you in court, it could well be my
counter-suit that would win. With this in mind: I will save you some
time (and later trouble): I do not work in Minnesota (period). I am not
a licensed psychologist (a license is not required for the job I do). I
am not a member of the Minnesota Psychological Assoc. I have sent you no
e-mail form any account in many months. I am an APA assoc. member (thus
not a college sophomore).
In article <3220bde4...@news.mont.mindspring.com>,
Leslie E. Packer, PhD
On Aug 25, 1996 21:04:58 in article <stop lying brad>,
'nojun...@this.address' wrote:
>my attorney is in the process of identifying which , if any, community
>college system employs you.
>As you refuse to stop contacting me and have now begun mailing to the
>postm...@perrystreet.com, I will not hesitate to report you to your
>employer if you do not stop contacting me or anyone connected with me.
>Diane
Peter
In article <an571479-250...@198.22.19.224>, Cognitee
<an57...@anon.penet.fi> writes
>Dear Diane,
> I e-mailed you ZERO times in the last 6 months.
Oh, and you _sure_ have a track record for telling the truth.
"With this pest I name thee;
Bradley...
"Ask about B.R.A.D." <br...@future.net>
'Cognitee <see...@of.post>'
"From B.R.A.D." <br...@future.net>
"One of B.R.A.D." <br...@future.net>
"PleaseHelpDefendDan,HeWillNeedHelp" <br...@future.net>
"SameThingasAbove,BetterCopy" <br...@future.net>
Addendum <br...@future.net>
AllCanSee <br...@future.net>
Allen Ivey <br...@future.net>
an571479 <an57...@anon.penet.fi>
anon <an...@xxx.xxx>
an57...@anon.penet.fi (Whoever)
an589948 <an58...@anon.penet.fi>
an60...@anon.penet.fi
an692398 <an69...@anon.penet.fi>
an69...@anon.penet.fi
an690705 <an69...@anon.penet.fi>
anon <an57...@anon.penet.fi>
an70...@anon.penet.fi
AnotherCaseOfRawABUSE <Cogn...@aol.com>
BAD...@aol.com
B Jesness <spa...@imt.net>
B J <br...@future.net>
B Jesness <br...@future.net>
B Jesness <spa...@servco.com>
b1r2...@aol.com.
BRADLEE
BRADvocate <je...@future.net>
brre...@aol.com (BrReceiv)
BULLYING <an57...@anon.penet.fi>
ClaimingWhatYouDon'tKnowIsALie <br...@future.net>
Cognito2 <Cogn...@aol.com>
CompanyConsideringThisSolution <br...@future.net>
cris...@aol.com (Crisis gal)
dakl...@aol.com (DAKLUVSJC) <Spotted by Lorne>
D Assmunn <D_As...@aol.com>
d...@not.try
e1c...@aol.com (E1CD2P3)
Grohol'sDirectThreat <Cogn...@aol.com>
GrowWhole <je...@future.net>
HighestLevelOfAbuseYET <Cogn...@aol.com>
iamfr...@aol.com
IKnowUDont, iknow...@aol.com
inco...@aol.com (Incognee)
Jess <je...@future.net>
ksni...@aol.com
Livimone <livi...@aol.com>
lurke...@aol.com (Lurker123X)
MightIAdd <br...@future.net>
MovedMessagefromAnother <br...@future.net>
n...@way.jose (L.)
NotASafePlace <n...@giv.en>
NoteToKillfileUsers <you.?@know.it> <N.B>
oneat...@aol.com (OneAtLarge)
opant...@aol.com (Opantidise)
oppa...@aol.com (Oppantidi)
Please let me know what Grohol says <spa...@imt.net>
PostAboveHasBeenAlterredbyAnother <br...@future.net>
psyc...@aol.com (Psycheth)
psyc...@imt.net
QuotingIvey <br...@future.net>
SCREWU <D@Assmunn.?.com>
Stuart Smalley <spa...@imt.net>
TheOriginalPost <br...@future.net>
ThreadBelowForThoseWhoCannotBeAppropriate <br...@future.net>
TooHottoHandle? <je...@future.net>
TurnsOutItsAllaMistake <spa...@servco.com>
Unknwname <unkn...@aol.com>
VoiceofAuthority <br...@future.net>
VoteNOtoGrohol <Cogn...@aol.com>
"WhoOutOfSkypointComm.Inc.isUSINGmyNAME?" <spa...@servco.com>
W/RtoInfoWanted <br...@future.net>
xerxes <x...@abc.com>
YehRightDave <br...@future.net>
You'dLiketoKnow <n...@way.jose>
Zarathustra
<76,etc.>....Jesness."
One more to go for the Sherman Tank. Are there any contributions,
please?
<snip>
--
Peter
Cognitee
Several of the screen names Peter lists, I have said are not me. And,
they are not. And, I will not go through and indicate it again. I will
say that for the last year (since unfortunately letting myself be forced
out of anonymity), I have either been Cognitee or signed my posts 99% of
the time.
Again, a "screen name" is surely not an alias when the post is signed.
AND: I have explained more than a half dozen of the name changes. Four
name changes were due to mail bombings and three were due to changing
services. In any case AGAIN 99% of the time I have been Cognitee or
signed my name. I still do have all right at some time to return to
anonymity if I choose.
Some of the "screen names" used in my signed posts simply identified
the type of post it was (i.e. topic) for Netscape and Newswatcher readers
(as a courtesy). I will add that if I keep the log of my e-mail going, I
shall have 365 more "aliases" by a year from now by Peter's definition,
though it is clear that they are all me.
Finally: The citing of these names with no proof when some are not me
is libel, and subject to prosecution. I guess whether I bring a case or
not depends on whether I disliked what any of the others said and that
defamed me.
In article <tLB9THA2...@brentano.demon.co.uk>, Peter
Peter
In article <an571479-260...@198.22.19.205>, Cognitee
<an57...@anon.penet.fi> writes
> Several of the screen names Peter lists, I have said are not me. And,
>they are not. And, I will not go through and indicate it again.
How many times did you deny using other 'screen' names in the past? You
were really shaken last year when this was uncovered. Now, having become
habitutated to discovery, you utter blank denial. No one knows what to
believe any more. If the whole of the subscribership of this NG went to
court, then you'd be in deep water, me lad. Deep water.
>I will
>say that for the last year (since unfortunately letting myself be forced
>out of anonymity), I have either been Cognitee or signed my posts 99% of
>the time.
Why did you want anonymity, and why did you not simply use _one_
anonymous anon.penet.fi alias from the very start? Why did you use the
aol facility for limitless aliases? Why do you use a browser to fake yet
more ???@???.???.??? names? I can think of only one reason;
NoteToKillfileUsers <you.?@know.it>
> Again, a "screen name" is surely not an alias when the post is signed.
>AND: I have explained more than a half dozen of the name changes.
Like this one:
NoteToKillfileUsers <you.?@know.it>
>Four
>name changes were due to mail bombings and three were due to changing
>services.
Like this one:
NoteToKillfileUsers <you.?@know.it>
>In any case AGAIN 99% of the time I have been Cognitee or
>signed my name.
NoteToKillfileUsers <you.?@know.it>
>I still do have all right at some time to return to
>anonymity if I choose.
NoteToKillfileUsers <you.?@know.it>
I'm not interested in definitions, I'm interested in the ability of
those who so wish to place these names in their kill files.
> Some of the "screen names" used in my signed posts simply identified
>the type of post it was (i.e. topic) for Netscape and Newswatcher readers
>(as a courtesy).
Instead of using your own?:
NoteToKillfileUsers <you.?@know.it>
>I will add that if I keep the log of my e-mail going, I
>shall have 365 more "aliases" by a year from now by Peter's definition,
>though it is clear that they are all me.
NoteToKillfileUsers <you.?@know.it>
Also. Thus Zarathustra slipped past kill files...
> Finally: The citing of these names with no proof when some are not me
>is libel, and subject to prosecution. I guess whether I bring a case or
>not depends on whether I disliked what any of the others said and that
>defamed me.
That so? Given that there are a number of posts in my other newsreader
that will link you to some, and given that I have taken these from other
lists, including one instance where legal action may be pending against
you, this is more than a little rich.
Tell you what; starting from the top tell us which ones you dispute,
then we'll all go through our archives and mailbases and confirm/
disconfirm what you say. It's quite simple, and your ISP's seem to
agree.
Tell us about your defammation of, i.e., the APA? How credible _are_
you?
>In article <tLB9THA2...@brentano.demon.co.uk>, Peter
><Pe...@brentano.demon.co.uk> wrote:
<chop>
Now, since we speak of law, tell me this: What will the APA say about
your claims to "Professorial" status, in news and in my mailbase? Shall
I forward this to news, so that people can add this claim to your public
one?
Have you no shame, no sense of self?
--
Peter
Cognitee
Dear Peter,
I use the present address and will as long as practical. This should
allow all killfile users their convenience (and I respect that). I am the
subject of abuse at times and thus may sometime have to make adjustments.
I shall strive to be consistent in how I appear as much as practical.
Regarding your statements (below), the APA is ripe for a law suit they
and several others have been informed. All I've heard from agree. Not
only do I have a point, but a legal point in my criticisms of the APA. I
have been a psychology instructor for over a decade. I have nothing to be
ashamed about. In fact, I am PROUD. I have a sense of self and dignity.
> Tell us about your defammation of, i.e., the APA? How credible _are_
> you?
>
> >In article <tLB9THA2...@brentano.demon.co.uk>, Peter
> ><Pe...@brentano.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
Robert White
Brad,
Peter will continue to list the anonymous names as he knows that
bothers you. Just ignore him and that will frustrate his intentions.
Clearly, the same would apply to Leslie in so far as she will
constantly threaten you with the same fascist lines as Senetor
McCarthy or Joe Stalin would have engaged in. Packer is simply
using the same tactic time and again. She is lame and so are her
cronies.
IGNORE THEM and let them make complete fools of themselves in front of
all monitoring!
p.s. and for god's sake don't make sexist remarks to anyone as
that's what the fascists want you to do. PLEASE understand
the dynamics in so far as both Peter and Leslie are here
to antagonize anyone that supports your right to speak freely
and to antagonize you so that they can justify harrassing
the ISPs and SYSOPS. Frankly, Leslie's little APA complaint
will go nowhere I assure you. Moreover, her threats are
all being documented and she has threatened you far more than
you have threatened her. Additionally, the method she uses
is so bloody obvious that anyone reviewing the case will
chuck it in the waste basket where it belongs. She is a
classic rank amateur and nothing more so don't fret! Also,
get back to your attack of the APA as that is what will
frustrate their intentions the most. Do not discuss anything
with Peter or Leslie and get on with the central issues
that you are attempting to promulgate. Do not let them
sidetrack you on tangential stuff.
IGNORE THEM!!!
sincerely,
Robert--
----------------------------------------- Carleton University ----------
Robert G. White Dept. of Psychology
Ottawa, Ontario. CANADA
INTERNET ADDRESS ----- rwh...@ccs.carleton.ca ------------------- E-MAIL
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Leslie E. Packer, PhD
On Aug 26, 1996 22:59:45 in article <Re: stop lying brad>,
'rwh...@superior.carleton.ca (Robert White)' wrote:
> Packer is simply
>using the same tactic time and again.
acknowledge applause of the cyberthrongs> <g>.
>She is lame and so are her
>cronies.
(Talk about lame!!!)
(Or maybe you're referring to the shiny gold fabric? Yoo hoo, Peter, have
you worn any lame recently? I like the silver... what do you like? <g>)
>IGNORE THEM and let them make complete fools of themselves in front of
>all monitoring!
>
>p.s. and for god's sake don't make sexist remarks to anyone as
>that's what the fascists want you to do.
this year. And we really wanted him to sexually harass women here. Oh
sure.
Have some chicken soup. Maybe John P will make it for you (John? Throw in
the gefilte fish! <G>)
>PLEASE understand
>the dynamics in so far as both Peter and Leslie are here
>to antagonize anyone that supports your right to speak freely
>and to antagonize you so that they can justify harrassing
>the ISPs and SYSOPS. Frankly, Leslie's little APA complaint
>will go nowhere I assure you.
and you certainly can't ASSURE him of anything. You do him no favors by
giving him empty assurances.
>all being documented and she has threatened you far more than
>you have threatened her.
in your charming way, I am consistent. I do exactly what I say I'm going
to do. IOW, I keep my word.
Now that may be difficult for you to grasp, since your friend keeps
promising to leave and doesn't or keeps promising to reform and doesn't.
But some of us actually do keep our word.
>Additionally, the method she uses
>is so bloody obvious that anyone reviewing the case will
>chuck it in the waste basket where it belongs. She is a
>classic rank amateur and nothing more so don't fret!
unlike you, who apparently couldn't even finish his final paper properly.
(Yo, Peter, should I tell him that I was the only student in the history of
my department to not only pass the written and oral defense, but to require
_no_ rewrites or revisions? Nah, that might be rubbing it in since he
couldn't even finish his little paper with its cutesy pie cover correctly
<G>.... wonder how many departmental honors in psychology he's
accumulated. Anyone wanna guess? <laughing>)
>Also,
>get back to your attack of the APA as that is what will
>frustrate their intentions the most. Do not discuss anything
>with Peter or Leslie and get on with the central issues
>that you are attempting to promulgate. Do not let them
>sidetrack you on tangential stuff.
>
>IGNORE THEM!!!
My, my, Robert. Calm yourself. You're acting just like you accused those
security guards of acting...
Oh my, oh my..... your post has left me mirthful. Thank you.
Leslie E. Packer, PhD
On Aug 26, 1996 20:02:49 in article <Re: stop lying brad>, 'Peter
<Pe...@brentano.demon.co.uk>' wrote:
>
>Now, since we speak of law, tell me this: What will the APA say about
>your claims to "Professorial" status, in news and in my mailbase? Shall
>I forward this to news, so that people can add this claim to your public
>one?
trying to convince you of the merit of his position, etc., then he is
undoubtedly (IMO) in violation of APA ethical guidelines.
I have tons of posts in my archive dealing with misleading statements,
attempts to deceive, etc. But I don't think I have any where he has
identified himself as a professor of psychology.
(Feel like a kid with 3 Whitey Ford cards when all I wanted was a Duke
Snider card... <g>)
Peter
In article <4vtmdl$s...@news1.t1.usa.pipeline.com>,
lpa...@nyc.pipeline.com writes
>On Aug 26, 1996 22:59:45 in article <Re: stop lying brad>,
>'rwh...@superior.carleton.ca (Robert White)' wrote:
>> Packer is simply
>>using the same tactic time and again.
<_White_ is using the same tactic time and again. Has anybody asked
_why_? I know the answer.>
>Gee, you mean like... I'm _consistent?_ Oh good <bowing humbly to
>acknowledge applause of the cyberthrongs> <g>.
And he <respectful White> is consistent in a number of ways. His
behaviour net-wide indicates that he is incapable of any other. More
internal consistency of some axiom, tho' definitely not moral. That's
what I heard.
>>She is lame and so are her
>>cronies.
>Hey, guy, it's not my vehicle that doesn't have enough power.
>(Talk about lame!!!)
>(Or maybe you're referring to the shiny gold fabric? Yoo hoo, Peter, have
>you worn any lame recently? I like the silver... what do you like? <g>)
Black chrome, with little Demons sequinned on. My ISPs telephone numbers
all end in "666", and I worship this ISP fervently. I am thinking of
having tridents and whatnot 'muralled' onto my bike, and having the
exhausts changed to black chrome, the better to match my lame. In fact,
I am considering the purchase of a "Triumph Trident". The colour, my
stature and my ISP add up to one thing. One has to live these things...
>>IGNORE THEM and let them make complete fools of themselves in front of
>>all monitoring!
[NoteToKillfileUsers <you.?@know.it>]
>>p.s. and for god's sake don't make sexist remarks to anyone as
>>that's what the fascists want you to do.
[NoteToKillfileUsers <you.?@know.it>]
>Oh yeah, we really wanted him to post that sexist garbage last year and
>this year. And we really wanted him to sexually harass women here. Oh
>sure.
Well, he has to egg Bradley on; he has little or no investment in this
matter, it is not he that faces any complaints or other actions that may
be taken. Yet.
I would like to discus this <"yet"> offline with you, Leslie. I have
some interesting ideas, WRT legitimate courses of action open to us in
the case of Mr. Robert White.
>Have some chicken soup. Maybe John P will make it for you (John? Throw in
>the gefilte fish! <G>)
Personally I would recommend iron filing soup with a dash of brimstone.
That's what my ISP favours, anyhow.
> >PLEASE understand
>>the dynamics in so far as both Peter and Leslie are here
>>to antagonize anyone that supports your right to speak freely
>>and to antagonize you so that they can justify harrassing
>>the ISPs and SYSOPS. Frankly, Leslie's little APA complaint
>>will go nowhere I assure you.
<Incitement... ...carry on, Robert White, carry on. It's all in my
archives.>
[NoteToKillfileUsers <you.?@know.it>]
>Duh? You're not even a member. You have no idea of how the APA operates,
>and you certainly can't ASSURE him of anything. You do him no favors by
>giving him empty assurances.
Well, he is a "rank amature". That's what I heard. Moreover, his
incitement to Bradley Jesness is explicable in terms of his e-mail to
me. What follows is the result of my _public_ promise to respond to
White _only_ in news, should he continue to behave offensively. I do so
_only_ because I have re-read his mail, and can see why he posts in the
manner that he does. He said:
------- Forwarded message follows -------
Received: from punt2.demon.co.uk by brentano.demon.co.uk with SMTP
id AA838798705 ; Wed, 31 Jul 96 07:38:25 BST
Received: from punt-2.mail.demon.net by mailstore for
Pe...@brentano.demon.co.uk
id 838793257:06140:1; Wed, 31 Jul 96 07:07:37 BST
Received: from alfred.ccs.carleton.ca ([134.117.1.1]) by punt-
2.mail.demon.net
id aa05588; 31 Jul 96 7:06 +0100
Received: from superior (superior.ccs.carleton.ca) by
alfred.ccs.carleton.ca (4.1/SMI-4.0)
id AA27659; Wed, 31 Jul 96 02:06:11 EDT
From: rwh...@ccs.carleton.ca (Robert White)
Received: by superior (4.1/Sun-Client)
id AA03815; Wed, 31 Jul 96 02:06:20 EDT
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 96 02:06:20 EDT
Message-Id: <9607310606.AA03815@superior>
To: Pe...@brentano.demon.co.uk
Subject: Re: Grohol's Agenda (FWD) [Plaud 1995]
Newsgroups: sci.psychology.psychotherapy
References: <4rp7tu$d...@bertrand.ccs.carleton.ca> <31ec12ca.89529266@ne
ws.premier.net> <31ED08...@coil.com> <X3q70JAT...@brentano.dem
on.co.uk> <rwhite.837666866@superior> <sMfpkMAUOn$xE...@brentano.demon.c
o.uk>
Peter,
Your abuse has driven me off the net for good. In some small way I
regret attempting to stop people from engaging in victimization.
Brad appears to be as abusive as John was and I understand his
reactions to him much more now. Suffice it to say that you are
also abusive and I think all of you are quite happy with the
situation you all find yourselves in. As for myself, I have no
more fight in me and wish that you would just leave me alone like
a good chap!
sincerely,
Robert--
----------------------------------------- Carleton University ----------
Robert G. White Dept. of Psychology
Ottawa, Ontario. CANADA
INTERNET ADDRESS ----- rwh...@ccs.carleton.ca ------------------- E-MAIL
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------- Forwarded message ends -------
[attempting to justify himself] and then said:
------- Forwarded message follows -------
Return-Path: <rwh...@ccs.carleton.ca>
Received: from punt2.demon.co.uk ([158.152.1.74]) by
brentano.demon.co.uk
with SMTP id <jEruKBAOS$$xA...@brentano.demon.co.uk>
for <pe...@brentano.demon.co.uk> ; Thu, 1 Aug 1996 01:04:31 +0100
Received: from punt-2.mail.demon.net by mailstore for
pe...@brentano.demon.co.uk
id 838851689:23695:2; Wed, 31 Jul 96 23:21:29 BST
Received: from alfred.ccs.carleton.ca ([134.117.1.1]) by punt-
2.mail.demon.net
id aa23502; 31 Jul 96 23:21 +0100
Received: from superior (superior.ccs.carleton.ca) by
alfred.ccs.carleton.ca (4.1/SMI-4.0)
id AA07380; Wed, 31 Jul 96 13:34:01 EDT
From: rwh...@ccs.carleton.ca (Robert White)
Received: by superior (4.1/Sun-Client)
id AA04638; Wed, 31 Jul 96 13:34:09 EDT
Message-Id: <9607311734.AA04638@superior>
Subject: Arggg!
To: pe...@brentano.demon.co.uk
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 96 13:34:09 EDT
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11]
Peter,
I had been reading the stuff that people were writing about Freudian
doctrine and felt that I may as well post that tid bit I had on-line.
This does not mean that I have changed my mind about the net, but only
that I felt like throwing that tid bit in before I leave Carleton and
ultimately lose my uploaded quotes. Just thought I would tell you this
so that you would not take it as an indication of anything other than
my interest in depth psych.
sincerely,
Robert
--
----------------------------------------- Carleton University ----------
Robert G. White Dept. of Psychology
Ottawa, Ontario. CANADA
INTERNET ADDRESS ----- rwh...@ccs.carleton.ca ------------------- E-MAIL
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
------- Forwarded message ends -------
I feel that I should, for the benefit of onlookers, re-emphasise this:
This does not mean that I have changed my mind about the net, but only
that I felt like throwing that tid bit in before I leave Carleton and
ultimately lose my uploaded quotes.
Thus it would seem that Mr. White is soon to be leaving us, tho' not
before he completes his final essay. Time enough for love.
I also want to re-emphasise to others that I am unlikely to post private
mail to news again. I have only done so because of Mr. White's
provocative and insulting behaviour. Moreover, I think that subscribers
to this newsgroup need to be aware that he only eggs his 'friend' Mr.
Jesness on in this way because he is apparently soon to leave Carleton
Univ.. He will leave Brad in the soup. I _urge_ anybody with the
inclination to complain about him to his sysop.
Finally, I would like to emphasise that these items are the least
controversial of his posts that I have in my mail base. Believe me, I
could do worse; some of his garbage is most offensive. I am restraining
myself, ATM. I warned him publicly, and I did so thinking that this day
would arrive:
---------------------
Message-ID: <YkXQnqAd...@brentano.demon.co.uk>
Date: Sun, 18 Aug 1996 22:19:25 +0100
From: Peter <Pe...@brentano.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: sci.psychology.psychotherapy
Subject: Re: Plans being sought for starting "a "B. Jesness <laughing
with "sickness"> fan club.
Path: brentano.demon.co.uk!Peter
References: <an589948-130...@198.22.19.222>
<4ur6na$2...@news1.t1.usa.pipeline.com> <4urano$l...@stratus.skypoint.net
>
<3211E8...@mit.edu> <d$CfdiARc...@brentano.demon.co.uk>
<rwhite.840266213@superior>
Lines: 164
Organization: Hauptquartier PORG Defence Union
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Distribution: world
X-Newsreader: Turnpike Version 1.12 <7WMlUWosQfjGHSciIGRMCYEIPZ>
References <rwhite.840266213@superior>, Robert MassiveQuote-White
<rwh...@superior.carleton.ca>.
<snip>
Furthermore, you would not have written to me professing certain
things that might obviously be used should you return to this NG in
order to play silly games, eh? Nor would you emulate your little
friend, Bradley Jesness, and write to me saying that you would not
return to this NG, only to make a mockery of your words, would you?
No, of course not. You would never have a similar, self-declared, fit
of 'dicklessness'. Team talks between the Axon and the Axon-grinder?
Shorely Shome Mishtake! <One compelling, the other obsessing and
repeating?> This must be one of my sub-clinical ramblings, one of the
demented ideas that I formed. Damn, where'd I put my chlorpromazine?
When's my _depot_ due, fur Chrissakes? Armleuchte.
<snip>
No chance pal. Think about it before you next reach spamming speed.
Think about your most untherapeutic behaviour, think about how you may
be perceived. Think about this; I will not reply to any of your
letters or list postings in private, I will only do so in public. I
consider personal communication with you to be as dangerous and
ill-advised as that to your friend, hence my public response to your
attempts to manipulate my ISP. I can repost all of this, Robberwock.
---------------------
>>all being documented and she has threatened you far more than
>>you have threatened her.
<Tut. Would you care to _specify_ the precise details, for my archives
and any further actions I may care to take?>
[NoteToKillfileUsers <you.?@know.it>]
>I see them as clear statements of behavioral contingencies. As you noted
>in your charming way, I am consistent. I do exactly what I say I'm going
>to do. IOW, I keep my word.
>Now that may be difficult for you to grasp, since your friend keeps
>promising to leave and doesn't or keeps promising to reform and doesn't.
>But some of us actually do keep our word.
He obviously doesn't know of your legal track record, Leslie. He should
do. He might thus behave himself...?
>>Additionally, the method she uses
>>is so bloody obvious that anyone reviewing the case will
>>chuck it in the waste basket where it belongs. She is a
>>classic rank amateur and nothing more so don't fret!
[NoteToKillfileUsers <you.?@know.it>]
>No amateur status, dear. Professional. And very successful, thank you,
>unlike you, who apparently couldn't even finish his final paper properly.
>(Yo, Peter, should I tell him that I was the only student in the history of
>my department to not only pass the written and oral defense, but to require
>_no_ rewrites or revisions? Nah, that might be rubbing it in since he
>couldn't even finish his little paper with its cutesy pie cover correctly
><G>.... wonder how many departmental honors in psychology he's
>accumulated. Anyone wanna guess? <laughing>)
Interestingly, this poster <White> informed me that John Grohol has no
qualification. He has a fetish for assigning people with the status
"amature". This from someone who is incapable of turning in his final
essay, thus 'needing' to spend an extra $700.00 on fees. Someone unable
to keep his truck in GWO. Erratic?
<Vivres, rewrites, ouch!>
>>Also,
>>get back to your attack of the APA as that is what will
>>frustrate their intentions the most. Do not discuss anything
>>with Peter or Leslie and get on with the central issues
>>that you are attempting to promulgate. Do not let them
>>sidetrack you on tangential stuff.
[Amendment: "Do not let them sidetrack you on your tangental stuff, even
though I am about to leave you".]
><laughing> Go fix your truck, dear. It seems to be your speed.
No, that, was his IRC wasn't it? I notice that he eggs on someone he has
previously described as obsessive, or was that compulsive <namely Brad>,
what can all of this mean, I ask myself.
>>IGNORE THEM!!!
[NoteToKillfileUsers <you.?@know.it>]
>My, my, Robert. Calm yourself. You're acting just like you accused those
>security guards of acting...
>Oh my, oh my..... your post has left me mirthful. Thank you.
Indeed. The antics of these two children has moved my neighbour to
consider writing a book. Any suggestions for the title? We thought that
"NoteToKillfileUsers <you.?@know.it>" would make it inaccessible to
uninitiates. I suggested something most rude. Also unacceptable. "The
Poli-Psy Files"?
--
Peter
In article <an571479-250...@198.22.19.210>, Cognitee
<an57...@anon.penet.fi> writes
Dear Leslie,
I want you to know that I consider you to have succeeded. I shall
henceforth be a model of propriety.
Peter
In article <an571479-260...@198.22.19.224>, Cognitee
<an57...@anon.penet.fi> writes
>Dear Peter,
> I use the present address and will as long as practical. This should
>allow all killfile users their convenience (and I respect that). I am the
>subject of abuse at times and thus may sometime have to make adjustments.
>I shall strive to be consistent in how I appear as much as practical.
So, it is practical to tell therapists, licensed psychologists, and such
like, to make way for your parapros? You are, errrm, brave? Or was that
ill advised in your thoughts? Or... ...what?
> Regarding your statements (below), the APA is ripe for a law suit they
>and several others have been informed.
I guess that axes your membership then, eh? Ripe for a lawsuit. Hmm. I
wonder, should I experience a sense of history in the making? What sort
of history will this be? Is your attempt not akin to a boxing match
between an ant and an elephant? Do please list the steps you have taken,
do tell who your solicitor <that's lawyer to you> is, do tell when the
action is to be initiated, and where? Will we forward all of your s.p.p
posts to the APA? It is as simple as e-m-a-i-l.
>All I've heard from agree.
Largely speaking, not in this NG, it would seem. In fact, unless I
missed it, no one has agreed with you in s.p.p.. Does this tell you
something?
>Not
>only do I have a point, but a legal point in my criticisms of the APA. I
>have been a psychology instructor for over a decade.
...which of course qualifies you to take the action you claim that you
are.
>I have nothing to be
>ashamed about. In fact, I am PROUD. I have a sense of self and dignity.
"Psychology instructor", or 'counselling instructor', 'Professor'
Jesness? That you can have pride and a sense of self and dignity after
much of what you have posted here, and your "xerxes <x...@abc.com>" stunt
with Dr. Packer, I am surprised. I am also surprised that young Robert
White feels able to support someone so consistently badly behaved.
Someone apparently unacquainted with, or prepared to adhere to, the
norms governing human behaviour. However, you have answered my earlier
questions; you by implication consider yourself to be happy, etc..
You still have yet to answer the question WRT your claims to
'professorial' status, and the question of definition/linguistic usage.
DAKL...@aol.com
In article <rwhite.841100385@superior> <4vtmdl$s...@news1.t1.usa.pipeline.com>,
lpa...@nyc.pipeline.com(Leslie E. Packer, PhD) wrote:
>
> On Aug 26, 1996 22:59:45 in article <Re: stop lying brad>,
> 'rwh...@superior.carleton.ca (Robert White)' wrote:
> > Packer is simply
> >using the same tactic time and again.
> >cronies.
> Hey, guy, it's not my vehicle that doesn't have enough power.
> (Talk about lame!!!)
> (Or maybe you're referring to the shiny gold fabric? Yoo hoo, Peter, have
> you worn any lame recently? I like the silver... what do you like? <g>)
> >all monitoring!
> >
> >that's what the fascists want you to do.
> this year. And we really wanted him to sexually harass women here. Oh
> sure.
> the gefilte fish! <G>)
> >the dynamics in so far as both Peter and Leslie are here
> >to antagonize anyone that supports your right to speak freely
> >and to antagonize you so that they can justify harrassing
> >the ISPs and SYSOPS. Frankly, Leslie's little APA complaint
> >will go nowhere I assure you.
> and you certainly can't ASSURE him of anything. You do him no favors by
> giving him empty assurances.
> >you have threatened her.
> in your charming way, I am consistent. I do exactly what I say I'm going
> to do. IOW, I keep my word.
> Now that may be difficult for you to grasp, since your friend keeps
> promising to leave and doesn't or keeps promising to reform and doesn't.
> But some of us actually do keep our word.
> >is so bloody obvious that anyone reviewing the case will
> >chuck it in the waste basket where it belongs. She is a
> >classic rank amateur and nothing more so don't fret!
> unlike you, who apparently couldn't even finish his final paper properly.
> (Yo, Peter, should I tell him that I was the only student in the history of
> my department to not only pass the written and oral defense, but to require
> _no_ rewrites or revisions? Nah, that might be rubbing it in since he
> couldn't even finish his little paper with its cutesy pie cover correctly
> <G>.... wonder how many departmental honors in psychology he's
> accumulated. Anyone wanna guess? <laughing>)
> >get back to your attack of the APA as that is what will
> >frustrate their intentions the most. Do not discuss anything
> >with Peter or Leslie and get on with the central
issues
> >that you are attempting to promulgate. Do not let them
> >sidetrack you on tangential stuff.
> >
> security guards of acting...
> Oh my, oh my..... your post has left me mirthful. Thank you.
L. Packer,
I thought this was a research service? You seem to be on some personal vendetta against this person "Brad". Why not conduct your personal business on e-mail? You also weem to be a vindictive person and quite unprofessional. Let the guy talk. So what if you don't like the content. Who made you the judge and jury of bulletin boards? He doesn't agree with your presuppositions. I don't either. Does that mean you are going to get me kicked of the service to?
DAK
How about those mets? (man do they bite)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
This article was posted to Usenet via the Posting Service at Deja News:
http://www.dejanews.com/ [Search, Post, and Read Usenet News!]
Leslie E. Packer, PhD
On Aug 27, 1996 19:55:24 in article <Re: stop lying brad>, 'Peter
<Pe...@brentano.demon.co.uk>' wrote:
>In article <4vtmdl$s...@news1.t1.usa.pipeline.com>,
>lpa...@nyc.pipeline.com writes
>>On Aug 26, 1996 22:59:45 in article <Re: stop lying brad>,
>>'rwh...@superior.carleton.ca (Robert White)' wrote:
>
>>> Packer is simply
>>>using the same tactic time and again.
>
><_White_ is using the same tactic time and again. Has anybody asked
>_why_? I know the answer.>
Because I recommended Brad read "_Tactic_s of Scientific Research" and
Robert free-dissociated?
How many guesses do we get?
>
>>>She is lame and so are her
>>>cronies.
>
>>Hey, guy, it's not my vehicle that doesn't have enough power.
>>(Talk about lame!!!)
>
>>(Or maybe you're referring to the shiny gold fabric? Yoo hoo, Peter,
have
>>you worn any lame recently? I like the silver... what do you like? <g>)
>
>Black chrome, with little Demons sequinned on. My ISPs telephone numbers
>all end in "666", and I worship this ISP fervently. I am thinking of
>having tridents and whatnot 'muralled' onto my bike, and having the
>exhausts changed to black chrome, the better to match my lame. In fact,
>I am considering the purchase of a "Triumph Trident". The colour, my
>stature and my ISP add up to one thing. One has to live these things...
<grinning> I can picture you, complete with requisite helmet with sparkly
things on it... <GG>
<snip>
>
>>Oh yeah, we really wanted him to post that sexist garbage last year and
>>this year. And we really wanted him to sexually harass women here. Oh
>>sure.
>
>Well, he has to egg Bradley on; he has little or no investment in this
>matter, it is not he that faces any complaints or other actions that may
>be taken. Yet.
<head tipped, inquiring look> Whatchoo got up your English sleeve, Peter,
m'boy?
>
>I would like to discus this <"yet"> offline with you, Leslie. I have
>some interesting ideas, WRT legitimate courses of action open to us in
>the case of Mr. Robert White.
Ah.. well I already posted you an address online. But feel free to contact
me offline. I have been told that I am a decent problem solver at times
<small grin>.
>
<snip>
Wait... he declared Brad abusive? And now supports him again?
<snip>
>I also want to re-emphasise to others that I am unlikely to post private
>mail to news again.
I think that "many and all" should post unsolicited email from people who
are harassing them. It is the only way to strip these people of their
hold... to know that others will see the vile garbage they spew forth when
they think are "safe" to do so.
>I have only done so because of Mr. White's
>provocative and insulting behaviour.
Understood, Peter.
Moreover, I think that subscribers
>to this newsgroup need to be aware that he only eggs his 'friend' Mr.
>Jesness on in this way because he is apparently soon to leave Carleton
>Univ..
Well, only if he graduates.... given what he posted, it's not clear that
he will do so in the near future, is it?
> He will leave Brad in the soup. I _urge_ anybody with the
>inclination to complain about him to his sysop.
<snip>
>
>>>all being documented and she has threatened you far more than
>>>you have threatened her.
>
><Tut. Would you care to _specify_ the precise details, for my archives
>and any further actions I may care to take?>
Yeah, I'm kind of curious myself....
>
>>I see them as clear statements of behavioral contingencies. As you noted
>>in your charming way, I am consistent. I do exactly what I say I'm going
>>to do. IOW, I keep my word.
>
>>Now that may be difficult for you to grasp, since your friend keeps
>>promising to leave and doesn't or keeps promising to reform and doesn't.
>>But some of us actually do keep our word.
>
>He obviously doesn't know of your legal track record, Leslie. He should
>do. He might thus behave himself...?
<shrug> Maybe yes, maybe no. I thought I was as clear as I could be. I
am not a "complaint-happy" person. I file complaints and take action only
when I think something is a serious matter.
<beaming and sitting up straighter> But I _did_ fight (NY) City Hall and
win, Peter... even though everyone says you can't <g>. But that was a
minor thing... a matter of principle over their negligence being
responsible for my son being injured (thank goodness, not too badly). But
the school district and state... now that was _really_ serious. And yes,
it cost the district a lot of money (not in dollars to me) but in legal
fees and then costs to implement the court order... about $250,000 for the
former, I was told, and about another $150K or so for the latter, I think.
The pity is that it didn't have to cost them a dime. I told them from the
outset that they were not behaving responsibly nor legally, but they
persisted in doing things their way. I didn't feel like I had any choice
but to go after them. Couldn't let them harm my son or other kids like
him.
>>>Additionally, the method she uses
>>>is so bloody obvious that anyone reviewing the case will
>>>chuck it in the waste basket where it belongs. She is a
>>>classic rank amateur and nothing more so don't fret!
>
>[NoteToKillfileUsers <you.?@know.it>]
>
>>No amateur status, dear. Professional. And very successful, thank you,
>>unlike you, who apparently couldn't even finish his final paper properly.
<snip>
>
>Interestingly, this poster <White> informed me that John Grohol has no
>qualification. He has a fetish for assigning people with the status
>"amature". This from someone who is incapable of turning in his final
>essay, thus 'needing' to spend an extra $700.00 on fees. Someone unable
>to keep his truck in GWO. Erratic?
<laughing>
>
><Vivres, rewrites, ouch!>
<still laughing>
>>
>><laughing> Go fix your truck, dear. It seems to be your speed.
>
>No, that, was his IRC wasn't it? I notice that he eggs on someone he has
>previously described as obsessive, or was that compulsive <namely Brad>,
>what can all of this mean, I ask myself.
No.. don't start talking to yourself, Peter. Talk to me. You may not get
answers that are as sensible, but it's a helluva lot healthier <g>.
>
>>>IGNORE THEM!!!
>
>[NoteToKillfileUsers <you.?@know.it>]
(This is getting a bit repetitious, Peter <G>).
>
>>My, my, Robert. Calm yourself. You're acting just like you accused
those
>>security guards of acting...
>
>>Oh my, oh my..... your post has left me mirthful. Thank you.
>
>Indeed. The antics of these two children has moved my neighbour to
>consider writing a book. Any suggestions for the title? We thought that
>"NoteToKillfileUsers <you.?@know.it>" would make it inaccessible to
>uninitiates. I suggested something most rude. Also unacceptable. "The
>Poli-Psy Files"?
Titles? Er... um....
"The Children's Hour" ? (no, that's been used already)
"The Courage to Glial: Confessions of a Net Axon" ?
"Beyond BRAD: Toxic Advocacy Revisited" ?
Hmmm... the latest issue of J of Exp Clin Psychopharm just arrived (she
said, eyeing it eagerly...). I'll be back...
>--
>Peter
>In article <an571479-250...@198.22.19.210>, Cognitee
><an57...@anon.penet.fi> writes
>Dear Leslie,
>I want you to know that I consider you to have succeeded. I shall
>henceforth be a model of propriety.
Oh yes. Any day now.
Leslie E. Packer, PhD
On Aug 27, 1996 22:55:12 in article <Re: stop lying brad>,Is it?
>You seem to be on some personal
>vendetta against this person "Brad".
> Why not conduct your personal business on
>e-mail?
have told him no e-mail and everything in public.
> You also weem to be a vindictive person and quite unprofessional. Let
>the guy talk. So what if you don't like the content.
>Who made you the judge
>and jury of bulletin boards? He doesn't agree with your presuppositions.
You've got it backwards, but that's probably because you came in late. He
acts like judge and jury if people don't agree with his sweeping assertions
about APA and paraprofessionals.
I'd suggest that before you jump in to conversations, you use an archival
service like Deja News to find out the real and complete history.
Unless you're another one of Brad's aliases or "friends." It's getting so
many here don't trust ANY post with an aol address, unfortunately.
I
>don't either. Does that mean you are going to get me kicked of the
service
>to?
Are you a sexual harasser? Do you send threatening letters? Are you
personally abusive? Do you call disabled individuals "retards?"
It the answers to the above are "yes," then my answer to you is "yes, I
will try to get you blocked."
I don't care what you think (and I don't mean that in a hostile way). I
_do_ care about whether you distort your credentials, misinform the public
about psychology and attack organizations and professionals without cause.
Regards,
Leslie
Leslie E. Packer, PhD
On Aug 27, 1996 22:55:12 in article <Re: stop lying brad>,Ah... missed the above before.
Yes. They do.
Ya see? We found something we agree on! <g>
Cognitee
Dera Leslie,
I absolutely deny the charge that I sexually harass women. I am glad
you indicate the record is completely public (and has been posted in the
newsgroups). **IT IS** completely public. I have 2 posts that people have
seen as "sexist," that's all. That is a far cry from "sexual" abuse and
you know it. What you are doing is libel.
In article <500848$l...@news1.t1.usa.pipeline.com>,
lpa...@nyc.pipeline.com(Leslie E. Packer, PhD) wrote:
> On Aug 27, 1996 22:55:12 in article <Re: stop lying brad>,
> 'DAKL...@aol.com' wrote:
>
>
> >
> >
> >I thought this was a research service?
>
> Is it?
>
> >You seem to be on some personal
> >vendetta against this person "Brad".
>
> You came in late. It was the reverse.
>
> > Why not conduct your personal business on
> >e-mail?
>
> Because he sexually harasses women in e-mail. Therefore a number of people
> have told him no e-mail and everything in public.
>
> > You also weem to be a vindictive person and quite unprofessional. Let
> >the guy talk. So what if you don't like the content.
>
> No one complained about the content. It's the style.
>
> >Who made you the judge
> >and jury of bulletin boards? He doesn't agree with your presuppositions.
>
>
> You've got it backwards, but that's probably because you came in late. He
> acts like judge and jury if people don't agree with his sweeping assertions
> about APA and paraprofessionals.
>
> I'd suggest that before you jump in to conversations, you use an archival
> service like Deja News to find out the real and complete history.
>
> Unless you're another one of Brad's aliases or "friends." It's getting so
> many here don't trust ANY post with an aol address, unfortunately.
>
> I
> >don't either. Does that mean you are going to get me kicked of the
> service
> >to?
>
Paul Bernhardt
In article <an571479-250...@198.22.19.224>,
an57...@anon.penet.fi (Cognitee) wrote:
> Well Diane,
> Several months ago there was someone who cxalled herself "D." Was that
> you? I may have written that person 2 or 3 times MANY months ago. If
> this is not you, I possibly have never e-mailed you.
> By the way: Are you having a psychotic breakdown?
Brad, this post is abusive of Diane. Please cease these postings.
+=============================================================+
Paul C. Bernhardt, M.S. in Social Psychology (non-clinical)
+=============================================================+
Leslie E. Packer, PhD
On Aug 28, 1996 13:22:01 in article <Re: stop lying brad>,
'an57...@anon.penet.fi (Cognitee)' wrote:
>Dera Leslie,
>I absolutely deny the charge that I sexually harass women. I am glad
>you indicate the record is completely public (and has been posted in the
>newsgroups). **IT IS** completely public. I have 2 posts that people have
>seen as "sexist," that's all. That is a far cry from "sexual" abuse and
>you know it. What you are doing is libel.
You accuse me of libel for crying "sexual abuse." Show us all exactly
where in my post it said sexual _abuse_.
You really need to learn to read better.
As to your estimate of two posts, you are off. I have forwarded over half
a dozen to the APA.
--
Peter
In article <4vvoj2$2...@news1.t1.usa.pipeline.com>,
lpa...@nyc.pipeline.com writes
>On Aug 27, 1996 19:55:24 in article <Re: stop lying brad>, 'Peter
><Pe...@brentano.demon.co.uk>' wrote:
>>In article <4vtmdl$s...@news1.t1.usa.pipeline.com>,
>>lpa...@nyc.pipeline.com writes
>>>On Aug 26, 1996 22:59:45 in article <Re: stop lying brad>,
>>>'rwh...@superior.carleton.ca (Robert White)' wrote:
<snip>
>><_White_ is using the same tactic time and again. Has anybody asked
>>_why_? I know the answer.>
>Um... because he has a very limited vocabulary?
Or...? Hummm. Thinks. He has no real point to make, only a pot of
contention to stir? Because he couldn't care, since he leaves univ.
soon?
>Because I recommended Brad read "_Tactic_s of Scientific Research" and
>Robert free-dissociated?
Ah. This could be it. Probably still worships at Plutchik's altar.
Myself I'd recommend reading James E. Alcock's book for 'Paras'. ;
>How many guesses do we get?
Could take a whiles. A mystery? Random selection? Quantal postings by
Dr. Packer increase the possibility of an R. White 'many and all'
potential?
<snip>
>>Black chrome, with little Demons sequinned on. My ISPs telephone numbers
>>all end in "666", and I worship this ISP fervently. I am thinking of
>>having tridents and whatnot 'muralled' onto my bike, and having the
>>exhausts changed to black chrome, the better to match my lame. In fact,
>>I am considering the purchase of a "Triumph Trident". The colour, my
>>stature and my ISP add up to one thing. One has to live these things...
><grinning> I can picture you, complete with requisite helmet with sparkly
>things on it... <GG>
Ahem. My old bash-hat was so old that the lining crumbled. The wife of a
good friend gave me her less-old one. She neglected to inform me that,
underneath the matt black paint, it was sparkling red, black and gold.
Paint came off in the rain. All over me. Sad really. Still use the old
one. When no one's looking.
<snip>
>>Well, he has to egg Bradley on; he has little or no investment in this
>>matter, it is not he that faces any complaints or other actions that may
>>be taken. Yet.
><head tipped, inquiring look> Whatchoo got up your English sleeve, Peter,
>m'boy?
[English speaker, I see?] Urrrm. I'd rather not tell in public. Just
yet. ???hem? <g>
<snipped out of deference to a non-Brad aol user>
><snip>
<snip>
>>Moreover, his incitement to Bradley Jesness is explicable in terms of
>> his e-mail to me. He said:
<deference>
>>Peter,
>>Your abuse has driven me off the net for good. In some small way I
>>regret attempting to stop people from engaging in victimization.
>>Brad appears to be as abusive as John was and I understand his
>>reactions to him much more now. Suffice it to say that you are
>>also abusive and I think all of you are quite happy with the
>>situation you all find yourselves in. As for myself, I have no
>>more fight in me and wish that you would just leave me alone like
>>a good chap!
>>(most?) sincerely,
>Wait... he declared Brad abusive? And now supports him again?
Yes. Beats me. Really does. Can't understand it at all. Undergrad-
Condottieri?
><snip>
>>I also want to re-emphasise to others that I am unlikely to post private
>>mail to news again.
<Except claims to professorial status, I reiterate.>
>I think that "many and all" should post unsolicited email from people who
>are harassing them. It is the only way to strip these people of their
>hold... to know that others will see the vile garbage they spew forth when
>they think are "safe" to do so.
Ah. In agreeing, I feel another "many and all" potential coming on...:
>>>Grohol has no qualifications whatsoever, Peter. He is nothing to many
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Hmm. Yes, you are correct, Leslie. _All_ should. This has been under the
covers for much too long. In accordance with this view I have taken
steps. I have remained true to a private promise to someone else not to
post to s.p.p certain abusive postings. Instead I have tried the route
that I should have in the first place, when I realised that a Rabbit was
away. The logical route.
>>I have only done so because of Mr. White's provocative and insulting
>>behaviour.
>Understood, Peter.
Took some thought. Put my foot very badly wrong once. Embarrassing.
Prefer the truth if at all possible, hence the 'handle'.
>>Moreover, I think that subscribers to this newsgroup need to be aware that
>>he only eggs his 'friend' Mr. Jesness on in this way because he is
>>apparently soon to leave Carleton Univ..
>Well, only if he graduates.... given what he posted, it's not clear that
>he will do so in the near future, is it?
Possibly not. We shall see.
;
<snip>
>>>>all being documented and she has threatened you far more than
>>>>you have threatened her.
>><Tut. Would you care to _specify_ the precise details, for my archives
>>and any further actions I may care to take?>
>Yeah, I'm kind of curious myself....
;
Uh huh. [Reiterating. Waiting.] [Tap, tap, tap of fingernails.]
<snip>
>>He obviously doesn't know of your legal track record, Leslie. He should
>>do. He might thus behave himself...?
><shrug> Maybe yes, maybe no. I thought I was as clear as I could be. I
>am not a "complaint-happy" person. I file complaints and take action only
>when I think something is a serious matter.
><beaming and sitting up straighter> But I _did_ fight (NY) City Hall and
<reluctant snipping-associated behaviours>
>but to go after them. Couldn't let them harm my son or other kids like
>him.
Remarkable. Bravo. Feat of legal arms. Pity you couldn't handle my legal
case for me. Too late now. Lost opportunity. Thousands of pounds missed.
<snip>
>>>No amateur status, dear. Professional. And very successful, thank you,
>>>unlike you, who apparently couldn't even finish his final paper properly.
[NB]
><snip>
<left in the woods for benefit of others of the same species>
>>Interestingly, this poster <White> informed me that John Grohol has no
>>qualification. He has a fetish for assigning people with the status
>>"amature". This from someone who is incapable of turning in his final
>>essay, thus 'needing' to spend an extra $700.00 on fees. Someone unable
>>to keep his truck in GWO. Erratic?
><laughing>
;
>><Vivres, rewrites, ouch!>
><still laughing>
<I do, these days. Organisation is the key. No good being unprepared,
good reading, graphing, presentation, etc. not enough.>
>>><laughing> Go fix your truck, dear. It seems to be your speed.
>>No, that, was his IRC wasn't it? I notice that he eggs on someone he has
>>previously described as obsessive, or was that compulsive <namely Brad>,
>>what can all of this mean, I ask myself.
>No.. don't start talking to yourself, Peter. Talk to me. You may not get
>answers that are as sensible, but it's a helluva lot healthier <g>.
Ah. Age again. Since my cat departed I find myself talking to me over
breakfast and such. Psychotic?
>>>>IGNORE THEM!!!
Shhhhhhhhh.
>>[NoteToKillfileUsers <you.?@know.it>]
>(This is getting a bit repetitious, Peter <G>).
Urrrm. There was an article in my society's monthly last year. 'Gentle
teaching' for the learning disabled. That may be ok, but in other
circumstances it appears to be necessary to firmly sit the pt. down in
front of their monitor and make them read repetitiously. They not being
learning disabled, one has to assume?
Hence new sig block.
<snip>
>>Indeed. The antics of these two children has moved my neighbour to
>>consider writing a book. Any suggestions for the title? We thought that
>>"NoteToKillfileUsers <you.?@know.it>" would make it inaccessible to
>>uninitiates. I suggested something most rude. Also unacceptable. "The
>>Poli-Psy Files"?
>Titles? Er... um....
>"The Children's Hour" ? (no, that's been used already)
Uh huh.
>"The Courage to Glial: Confessions of a Net Axon" ?
LOL! I see that you play the myelin?
>"Beyond BRAD: Toxic Advocacy Revisited" ?
Mmmmmm.
>Hmmm... the latest issue of J of Exp Clin Psychopharm just arrived (she
>said, eyeing it eagerly...). I'll be back...
Ah. You found the vibratome then, Dr. Schwarzenegger? How about "Slow
potential to Minnesota"?
>>In article <an571479-250...@198.22.19.210>, Cognitee
>><an57...@anon.penet.fi> writes
>>Dear Leslie,
>>I want you to know that I consider you to have succeeded. I shall
>>henceforth be a model of propriety.
>Oh yes. Any day now.
Joan Baez? She who overcame?
Decimal Point
Cog - you are some piece of work! I have always tried to stay clear of you
and on the rare occasion that I have approached your posts I have always
approached you with respect. I am D.Barker and am always at the same address.
You did e-mail me a few months back, and in case there was any confusion
those e-mails were unsolicited, unappreciated, and always unwelcome!
Oh, and since this is a Psych NG maybe you could look up the definition of
PROJECTION and then re-read your post to Diane (for that matter you could
re-read any one of your posts to this NG). I think you will find it a
fascinating discovery.
D. Barker
In article <Paul.Bernhardt-...@news.cc.utah.edu>
Paul.Be...@m.cc.utah.edu (Paul Bernhardt) writes:>From:
Paul.Be...@m.cc.utah.edu (Paul Bernhardt)>Subject: Re: stop lying brad
>Date: 28 Aug 1996 23:33:39 GMT
Peter
In article <500848$l...@news1.t1.usa.pipeline.com>,
lpa...@nyc.pipeline.com writes
>Are you a sexual harasser? Do you send threatening letters? Are you
>personally abusive? Do you call disabled individuals "retards?"
>
>It the answers to the above are "yes," then my answer to you is "yes, I
>will try to get you blocked."
I suspect that you will not be alone in doing so.
Paul Bernhardt
In article <an571479-250...@198.22.19.226>,
an57...@anon.penet.fi (Cognitee) wrote:
> Dear Diane,
> I also DEFINITELY never had the address of BRA...@aol.com You and
> your people better get technically better; a forger is on the loose. I
> hope you don't suffer much. I will provide you with whatever help I can.
> You have definitely gotten NO MAIL from me through future.net.
For newbies::
This is the standard response of Brad whenever he is caught sending
inappropriate mail. He claims that a forger has done it.... Brad, this
strains credibility.
Peter
In article <an571479-280...@198.22.19.206>, Cognitee
<an57...@anon.penet.fi> writes
>Dera Leslie,
> I absolutely deny the charge that I sexually harass women.
Do you?
>I am glad you indicate the record is completely public
>(and has been posted in the newsgroups).
Are you?
>**IT IS** completely public.
It is.
>I have 2 posts that people have seen as "sexist," that's all.
>That is a far cry from "sexual" abuse and you know it.
In your own words:
[NoteToKillfileUsers <you.?@know.it>]
>What you are doing is libel.
Oh Yeah? Let's look at the _publicly available_ data:
1)
In article: <45os58$4...@cu.comp-unltd.com> Brad <psyc...@imt.net>
writes:
> Yeh, yeh, yeh. We know the rules ladies: "you're always right." One
> can always think she's always right. Thinking so is not necessarily
> an accomplishment unless you do not care about sound reason (then I
> guess you could be confident you've accomplished something). BUT I
> DON'T OBEY THE RULES. To me women are high imaginative, think more
> than they do or actually accomplish (big problem) and have a
> beguilingly deceptive (including self-deceptive) form of mental
> masturbation they do almost at all times. They may be more human in
> some ways; but this may just be more evil.
2)
In article <4tjd6l$o...@stratus.skypoint.net>, Cognitee
<Cogn...@aol.com> writes
>Yes, Leslie,
> I am too important and busy to look up the papermill where you
>received your rag.
> I will get back to you on effect sizes and the citation. It was NOT
>common two decades ago.
>(P.S. I am a masocist, how about a date? *we seem to have become
>close, dear)
3)
In article <4tjiid$r...@stratus.skypoint.net>, Cognitee
<Cogn...@aol.com> writes
>Leslie,
> You sultry sexy woman among women... (just trying to imagine
>something good about you).
4)
In article <4tjn8l$t...@stratus.skypoint.net>, Cognitee
<Cogn...@aol.com> writes
>Dear Leslie,
> What did you say: Your a tart? (requisite insult complete)
5)
In article <4tjne0$t...@stratus.skypoint.net>, Cognitee
<Cogn...@aol.com> writes
>Go screw yourself at least once this year; do us all a favor.
6)
In message <1996073017...@dream.future.net>, Cognitee
<Cogn...@aol.com> writes
>Dear Peter,
> If you can encourage a bit of civility from the fuckin' bitch
>(Leslie) I shall desist.
There are others, reportedly. I think that I can summon them
Just once would have irritated me. Twice?
So, when you say:
> I absolutely deny the charge that I sexually harass women.
are you LYING Brad? Or have you merely FORGOTTEN?
Leslie E. Packer, PhD
On Aug 28, 1996 23:37:50 in article <Re: stop lying brad>, 'Peter
<Pe...@brentano.demon.co.uk>' wrote:
<snip>
>><head tipped, inquiring look> Whatchoo got up your English sleeve,
Peter,
>>m'boy?
>
>[English speaker, I see?]
> Urrrm. I'd rather not tell in public. Just
>yet. ???hem? <g>
<snip>
>>Wait... he declared Brad abusive? And now supports him again?
>
>Yes. Beats me. Really does. Can't understand it at all. Undergrad-
>Condottieri?
>
>><snip>
>
>>>I also want to re-emphasise to others that I am unlikely to post private
>>>mail to news again.
>
><Except claims to professorial status, I reiterate.>
his assertions of being a professor?
Brad: how come you told Peter you were a professor? That's not a typical
American English expression for an instructor. Does your community college
where you teach call all faculty "Professor?"
>
>>I think that "many and all" should post unsolicited email from people who
>>are harassing them. It is the only way to strip these people of their
>>hold... to know that others will see the vile garbage they spew forth
when
>>they think are "safe" to do so.
>
>Ah. In agreeing, I feel another "many and all" potential coming on...:
What is it with you and these "many and all" potentials? You have more
potentials than the neurons left in my aging brain, I suspect.... <g>
>
>>>>Grohol has no qualifications whatsoever, Peter. He is nothing to many
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Hmm. Yes, you are correct, Leslie. _All_ should. This has been under the
>covers for much too long. In accordance with this view I have taken
>steps. I have remained true to a private promise to someone else not to
>post to s.p.p certain abusive postings. Instead I have tried the route
>that I should have in the first place, when I realised that a Rabbit was
>away. The logical route.
<pause while I try to decipher the above>
<drumming fingers on mousepad and thinking furiously>
I see only one "logical" route.
>
>>>I have only done so because of Mr. White's provocative and insulting
>>>behaviour.
>
>>Understood, Peter.
>
>Took some thought. Put my foot very badly wrong once. Embarrassing.
You refer to your accusations about John Price and John Clark being one and
the same poster? This is a different kind of thing, though, Peter.
>Prefer the truth if at all possible, hence the 'handle'.
I lost you on the "handle"....?
<snip>
>>>>>all being documented and she has threatened you far more than
>>>>>you have threatened her.
>
>>><Tut. Would you care to _specify_ the precise details, for my archives
>>>and any further actions I may care to take?>
>
>>Yeah, I'm kind of curious myself....
>;
>Uh huh. [Reiterating. Waiting.] [Tap, tap, tap of fingernails.]
Ah... I was drumming, you are tapping. All together now and we may have a
paradiddle... LRLL RLRR LRLL RLRR... accents on the first should do it <g>.
>
><snip>
>>>He obviously doesn't know of your legal track record, Leslie. He should
>>>do. He might thus behave himself...?
>
>><shrug> Maybe yes, maybe no. I thought I was as clear as I could be. I
>>am not a "complaint-happy" person. I file complaints and take action
only
>>when I think something is a serious matter.
>
>><beaming and sitting up straighter> But I _did_ fight (NY) City Hall and
><reluctant snipping-associated behaviours>
>>but to go after them. Couldn't let them harm my son or other kids like
>>him.
>
>Remarkable. Bravo. Feat of legal arms. Pity you couldn't handle my legal
>case for me. Too late now. Lost opportunity. Thousands of pounds missed.
Have any statute of limitations expired? While it would not be accurate to
say that I've been admitted to the bar in England, it _would_ be accurate
to say that I was admitted to _many_ bars while in England years ago. (Or
should I say "many and all" ?) <g>
And hey-- if I represented you, I wouldn't even need one of those wigs they
wear <g> ... so tell me (privately, if it's inappropriate for here) -- who
do you want me to go after on your behalf? And should I bring Phil and
Tony from Noo Joisey with me (the BreakaUKnees brothers)?
<snip>
>;
>>><Vivres, rewrites, ouch!>
>
>><still laughing>
>
><I do, these days. Organisation is the key. No good being unprepared,
>good reading, graphing, presentation, etc. not enough.>
>
Right. One also needs pretty folders to put the work in.
<snip>
>
>>>No, that, was his IRC wasn't it? I notice that he eggs on someone he has
>>>previously described as obsessive, or was that compulsive <namely Brad>,
>>>what can all of this mean, I ask myself.
>
>>No.. don't start talking to yourself, Peter. Talk to me. You may not get
>>answers that are as sensible, but it's a helluva lot healthier <g>.
>
>Ah. Age again. Since my cat departed I find myself talking to me over
>breakfast and such. Psychotic?
I'm not qualified to diagnose, m'dear, but I'd say not. Especially since I
have been known to spend the quiet moment or two talking to my dog, Pavlov
<g>.
>>>[NoteToKillfileUsers <you.?@know.it>]
>
>>(This is getting a bit repetitious, Peter <G>).
>
>Urrrm. There was an article in my society's monthly last year. 'Gentle
>teaching' for the learning disabled. That may be ok, but in other
>circumstances it appears to be necessary to firmly sit the pt. down in
>front of their monitor and make them read repetitiously. They not being
>learning disabled, one has to assume?
>
>Hence new sig block.
I am immortalized in a sig block? <g>
>
><snip>
>>>Indeed. The antics of these two children has moved my neighbour to
>>>consider writing a book. Any suggestions for the title? We thought that
>>>"NoteToKillfileUsers <you.?@know.it>" would make it inaccessible to
>>>uninitiates. I suggested something most rude. Also unacceptable. "The
>>>Poli-Psy Files"?
>
>>Titles? Er... um....
>
>>"The Children's Hour" ? (no, that's been used already)
>Uh huh.
>>"The Courage to Glial: Confessions of a Net Axon" ?
>LOL! I see that you play the myelin?
No. I studied piano.. and some guitar... no myelin <g>.
>>"Beyond BRAD: Toxic Advocacy Revisited" ?
>Mmmmmm.
>>Hmmm... the latest issue of J of Exp Clin Psychopharm just arrived (she
>>said, eyeing it eagerly...). I'll be back...
>
>Ah. You found the vibratome then, Dr. Schwarzenegger? How about "Slow
>potential to Minnesota"?
Well, I don't know it, but if you hum a few bars? <g>
>
>>>In article <an571479-250...@198.22.19.210>, Cognitee
>>><an57...@anon.penet.fi> writes
>>>Dear Leslie,
>>>I want you to know that I consider you to have succeeded. I shall
>>>henceforth be a model of propriety.
>
>>Oh yes. Any day now.
>
>Joan Baez? She who overcame?
Nah.. she just re-recorded it. It's an old black spiritual. Remember the
verse that begins "We are not afraid..."
>--
>Peter
>In article <an571479-250...@198.22.19.210>, Cognitee
><an57...@anon.penet.fi> writes
>Dear Leslie,
>I want you to know that I consider you to have succeeded. I shall
>henceforth be a model of propriety.
<still waiting>
Leslie E. Packer, PhD
On Aug 29, 1996 01:58:46 in article <Re: stop lying brad>, 'Peter
<Pe...@brentano.demon.co.uk>' wrote:
>In article <an571479-280...@198.22.19.206>, Cognitee
><an57...@anon.penet.fi> writes
>>Dera Leslie,
>> I absolutely deny the charge that I sexually harass women.
>
>Do you?
>
>>I am glad you indicate the record is completely public
>>(and has been posted in the newsgroups).
>
>Are you?
>
>>**IT IS** completely public.
>
>It is.
>
>>I have 2 posts that people have seen as "sexist," that's all.
>>That is a far cry from "sexual" abuse and you know it.
>
>In your own words:
>
>[NoteToKillfileUsers <you.?@know.it>]
>
>>What you are doing is libel.
li·bel (lº“b…l) Law. n. 1.a. A false publication in writing, printing, or
typewriting or in signs or pictures that maliciously damages a person's
reputation. b. The act or an instance of presenting such a statement to the
public. 2. The written claims presented by a plaintiff in an action at
admiralty law or to an ecclesiastical court.
Well, right off the bat, it can't be libel since his reputation here can't
get any worse than it already is.
But then there's the notion of "false." Hmmm.... would it be "false" if
there was evidence of the charge? I think not....
>
>Oh Yeah? Let's look at the _publicly available_ data:
that there the accusation is not "false."
>There are others, reportedly. I think that I can summon them
>
>Just once would have irritated me. Twice?
>So, when you say:
>
>> I absolutely deny the charge that I sexually harass women.
>
>are you LYING Brad? Or have you merely FORGOTTEN?
>Peter
>In article <an571479-250...@198.22.19.210>, Cognitee
><an57...@anon.penet.fi> writes
>Dear Leslie,
>I want you to know that I consider you to have succeeded. I shall
>henceforth be a model of propriety.
Brad: how about explaining your _motivation_ for that question, since you
said it would be good therapy to explain your motivation.
dakl...@aol.com
In article <8411855...@dejanews.com> <500848$l...@news1.t1.usa.pipeline.com>,> On Aug 27, 1996 22:55:12 in article <Re: stop lying brad>,> Is it?
> >vendetta against this person "Brad".
> >e-mail?
> have told him no e-mail and everything in public.
> >the guy talk. So what if you don't like the content.
> >and jury of bulletin boards? He doesn't agree with your presuppositions.
> acts like judge and jury if people don't agree with his sweeping assertions
> about APA and paraprofessionals.
> I'd suggest that before you jump in to conversations, you use an archival
> service like Deja News to find out the real and complete history.
> Unless you're another one of Brad's aliases or "friends." It's getting so
> many here don't trust ANY post with an aol address, unfortunately.
> >don't either. Does that mean you are going to get me kicked of the
> service
> >to?
> personally abusive? Do you call disabled individuals "retards?"
> It the answers to the above are "yes," then my answer to you is "yes, I
> will try to get you blocked."
> _do_ care about whether you distort your credentials, misinform the public
> about psychology and attack organizations and professionals without cause.
> Regards,
> Leslie
>
Dearleslie,
I do have DejaNews service. I went back and read over 100 posts between you and "brad". I believe that the essence of the debate between you two is the validaty of your profession from a scientific perspective. That seems to be the main point. "Brad" also seems to be making a case for "paraprofessionals" having a legitimate place in the "counseling" field. Each of you have sited various research articles to make a case.
I don't agree with the tactics used by either one of you. This "Brad" uses some inappropriate language at times. While you use cutting sarcasim and specious inuendos. Sexual harrassment? I read what you define as sexual harrassment. It seems that you have done the same thing as "Brad". You imply much bias toward men in your corresspondence. I guess what makes "Brads" comments "sexual harrassment" is that you are a woman. How pathetic.
Why don't you two either reengage in the original debate like two adults.
Also,simply because someone agrees with parts of what "Brad" says (and I do) should not brand us with your judgemental broad brush. This reminds me of McCarthy's communism or the Salem witch hunts. Damned if you do damned if you don't. Grow up Dr. You may have something to learn from "paraprofessionals" and perhaps even "nonprofessionals" (i.e. the common folk). Remember mankind did quite well before all you "professionals" came along.
Finally. I do think you are some kind of a "1984" cybercop. You are too selfrighteous Dr. Take a humility pill.
sincerely,
DAK
How about the Buffalo Bills? (major chookers)
Leslie E. Packer, PhD
On Aug 28, 1996 23:37:04 in article <Re: stop lying brad>, 'Peter
<Pe...@brentano.demon.co.uk>' wrote:
>In article <500848$l...@news1.t1.usa.pipeline.com>,
>lpa...@nyc.pipeline.com writes
>>personally abusive? Do you call disabled individuals "retards?"
>>
>>It the answers to the above are "yes," then my answer to you is "yes, I
>>will try to get you blocked."
>
too. Complaints about harassment and personal abuse -- not about contents,
but _style_.
And Brad's comment to Diane U asking her if she was having a psychotic
breakdown is exactly the kind of post that gets him in very serious
trouble.
I cannot imagine someone who claims to be a counseling instructor and who
claims that he almost has a masters in counseling asking such a question.
(And to Sandy H: I am not a psychotherapist, so please don't judge
psychotherapists or clinical psychologists by my posts. They are generally
much kinder and more tolerant than I am. It would be accurate, however, to
say that I am one very distressed/angry (rehab) psychologist and advocate
for kids and teens with neuropsychiatric disorders. Mr. Jesness's posts
that demean professional psychology and clinicians are misleading and
dangerous, IMO. Further, in case you missed it, he calls people with
neurological problems "retards." So you may wish me to stop fighting with
him, but I won't. I will never be silent in the face of such outrageous
and unprofessional (IMO) conduct.)
Leslie
Leslie E. Packer, PhD
On Aug 29, 1996 21:54:49 in article <Re: stop lying brad>,
'dakl...@aol.com' wrote:
>Dearleslie,
>
>I do have DejaNews service. I went back and read over 100 posts between
you
>and "brad". I believe that the essence of the debate between you two is
the
>validaty of your profession from a scientific perspective. That seems to
be
>the main point. "Brad" also seems to be making a case for
"paraprofessionals"
>having a legitimate place in the "counseling" field. Each of you have
sited
>various research articles to make a case.
that generate more "heat," as it were.
>
>I don't agree with the tactics used by either one of you. This "Brad"
uses
>some inappropriate language at times. While you use cutting sarcasim and
>specious inuendos. Sexual harrassment? I read what you define as sexual
>harrassment. It seems that you have done the same thing as "Brad". You
imply
>much bias toward men in your corresspondence.
I imply bias towards men? Please show me where, because I certainly am not
aware of feeling biased against men in general, nor bias against the many
men in this ng. I have dislike for one person only.
>I guess what makes "Brads"
>comments "sexual harrassment" is that you are a woman. How pathetic.
No. What makes his statements sexual harassment is that he responded on
the basis of gender, and crudely, etc., in an attempt to make the recipient
feel uncomfortable. You'd really have to show me where I attempted to make
him feel badly because he is a man. And don't bother citing anything that
has to do with follow-up on his "dickless" post, etc., since he was the one
who made that assertion. I am only "guilty" of throwing it back at him.
>
>Why don't you two either reengage in the original debate like two adults.
Had you read more than 100 posts or listened to any of the other 'regulars'
here, you'd know the answer. Brad can't maintain a discussion on a civil
basis. Many have tried (myself included). As soon as you disagree with
him or show him where he's wrong in his data cites or interpretation, he
gets personally abusive.
>
>Also,simply because someone agrees with parts of what "Brad" says (and I
do)
>should not brand us with your judgemental broad brush.
Who branded you? Or more to the point, why do you feel branded? If you go
back to the beginning of the discussion, which involved Brad, myself, Ed
Anderson, and Scot, you will see that I did agree with parts of what Brad
said.
> This reminds me of
>McCarthy's communism or the Salem witch hunts. Damned if you do damned if
you
>don't. Grow up Dr.
Thank you. I'm all grown up now. It's your turn.
> You may have something to learn from "paraprofessionals"
>and perhaps even "nonprofessionals" (i.e. the common folk).
FIrst of all, where did anyone ever say that paraprofessionals have nothing
to offer? Please cite an exact quote or post. You seem to be assuming WAY
too much.
Second, where did I or anyone else ever say that I don't value and learn
from "nonprofessionals?" Again, an exact quote or post, please. I really
dislike having words put in my mouth.
> Remember mankind
>did quite well before all you "professionals" came along.
What on earth is your point? Are you reiterating Brad's misconceptions
about what I do or what kind of professional I am?
Listen, if you draw conclusions based on _anything_ he says, you run the
risk of being seriously misled.
>
>Finally. I do think you are some kind of a "1984" cybercop. You are too
>selfrighteous Dr. Take a humility pill.
>
>sincerely,
>
>DAK
"Take a humility pill" and then "sincerely?" I think not.
>
>How about the Buffalo Bills? (major chookers)
I don't like football. Every time I try to watch a game I land up worrying
that someone's going to land up with a cervical fx.
Look, I have no dispute with anyone here except for one person and his
cyber-aliases or one or two friends. I think your perception of me is off,
but that is not my problem. If you don't like what I'm doing or like me,
that's fine. It doesn't matter to me. What _does_ matter to me is that
there is a lot of inaccurate information being given out about psychology.
What _does_ anger me is the personally abusive and sexually harassing
messages I have received. And if you didn't see what he posted in some of
the sex-oriented newsgroups to create hassles for me, then you're
overestimating the integrity of the man.
So until you read more or get a fuller picture, please don't contact me
again. I don't wish to be rude to you, but I don't have time to spend
defending myself against anyone and everyone who wanders in off the
cyberstreet and doesn't understand the very long history of this one person
terrorizing this newsgroup and tying it up in knots. It's going to stop.
One way or the other. But it will stop.
Nancy Alvarado
On 29 Aug 1996 dakl...@aol.com wrote:
> folk). Remember mankind did quite well before all you "professionals"
> came along.
>
Actually, mankind has always had "professionals." They were called
healers, shaman, medicine men, witch doctors, and priests. Mankind
considered them so essential that they exist in every culture, and were
generally given high social status (despite their occasional failures).
Walter Mischel's book on this subject is fascinating.
Doubt that anyone with a serious problem ever took it to a parapro in the
old days either.
Nancy
Peter
In article <503evn$j...@news1.t1.usa.pipeline.com>,
lpa...@nyc.pipeline.com writes
>On Aug 28, 1996 23:37:50 in article <Re: stop lying brad>, 'Peter
><Pe...@brentano.demon.co.uk>' wrote:
<Snip>
>>>Wait... he declared Brad abusive? And now supports him again?
>>Yes. Beats me. Really does. Can't understand it at all. Undergrad-
>>Condottieri?
>Or too many fumes from the truck, perhaps?
Aaaah. The Pseu-Quotonia 2000SUX.?
>>><snip>
>>>>I also want to re-emphasise to others that I am unlikely to post private
>>>>mail to news again.
>><Except claims to professorial status, I reiterate.>
>Which reminds me.... has Brad answered your post with the questions about
>his assertions of being a professor?
He appears to have assumed the status assigned to him by a Professor
Emeritus, christian name "Frank", whose post was as precise as
pointillist art.
>Brad: how come you told Peter you were a professor? That's not a typical
>American English expression for an instructor. Does your community college
>where you teach call all faculty "Professor?"
[?]
>>>I think that "many and all" should post unsolicited email from people who
>>>are harassing them. It is the only way to strip these people of their
>>>hold... to know that others will see the vile garbage they spew forth
>>>when they think are "safe" to do so.
>>Ah. In agreeing, I feel another "many and all" potential coming on...:
>What is it with you and these "many and all" potentials? You have more
>potentials than the neurons left in my aging brain, I suspect.... <g>
Well, to phrase my earlier mistake more correctly, the quantal <hidden
technical pun here> emission of e-mail and postings from Dr. Leslie
Packer, they being exocytosed from the PC into the modem on the arrival
of calcinous messages from former to latter, increases the _probability_
of further 'many and all potentials' in the logon cleft. I gather that
there are interesting possibilities here, inasmuch that autoreceptors in
servers may have effects that constitute a feedback mechanism similar to
that between synapse and soma. Oh, how I love my soma. Indeedydo.
Similarly, it might be argued that - following the chronic application
of posto-leptic medications - depolarisation block may set in. The
corollary to this beh.-pharm. argument is that withdrawal of such beh.-
pharm. treatments may result in the neurone recovering from the massive
and aversive effects that caused depolarisation block in the first
place. Accordingly it is better to keep the needle warm, it is better
always to have an ampoule of beh.-pharm. medicine available. Failure to
do so will result in loss of learning.
Such loss of learning will inevitably attract the sympathy of lurkers
who inadvisedly make suggestions. Such suggestions will distract us from
our purpose; debate not hate. I will _not_ be distracted, I make this
clear, here and now. I understand what we are doing, just as you and
others do. I also understand what the plot is, unlike many lurkers; I
have the script in my PC, and it is ugly. Let lurkers remember this, and
read the information that has been quoted.
>>>>>Grohol has no qualifications whatsoever, Peter. He is nothing to many
>>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
[Wishful thinking? Hate? Defammation? Lurkers note the campaign.]
>>Hmm. Yes, you are correct, Leslie. _All_ should. This has been under the
>>covers for much too long. In accordance with this view I have taken
>>steps. I have remained true to a private promise to someone else not to
>>post to s.p.p certain abusive postings. Instead I have tried the route
>>that I should have in the first place, when I realised that a Rabbit was
>>away. The logical route.
><pause while I try to decipher the above>
<?>
><drumming fingers on mousepad and thinking furiously>
<...>
>I see only one "logical" route.
It is a straight one!
>>Took some thought. Put my foot very badly wrong once. Embarrassing.
>You refer to your accusations about John Price and John Clark being one and
>the same poster? This is a different kind of thing, though, Peter.
Always peer through the scope carefully, first ascertain that the target
is indeed a 'target'. In the event that errors are made, learn. WRT
another campaign, never waste ammunition, ensure that the reserve is
always on standby, always review battlefield intelligence. The Chinese
art of war is the oldest and wisest. It is cautious but daring. It waits
for reappearances, always. In so waiting, soldiers keep the quiver of
arrows very near.
>>Prefer the truth if at all possible, hence the 'handle'.
>I lost you on the "handle"....?
Brentano believed passionately in 'truths'. He felt that empirical
science is impossible without some <a>prior clarification of
preconceptions. This and the mad cultural dance of fin-de-siecle Vienna
<parallels now?> entranced me. Hence bren...@demon.co.uk.
<snip>
>>>><Vivres, rewrites, ouch!>
>>><still laughing>
>><I do, these days. Organisation is the key. No good being unprepared,
>>good reading, graphing, presentation, etc. not enough.>
>Right. One also needs pretty folders to put the work in.
Naaaah. One has to visit the bindery. A little more expensive than
pretty plastic folders, methinks. <g> 'Nice' gold leaf on the spine.
Happy biker, jolly dwarf. Success. Reward. Therapeutic.
<snip>
>>Hence new sig block.
>I am immortalized in a sig block? <g>
...and Ph.D. thesis, unlike persons elsewhere.
;
<snip>
>>>"The Courage to Glial: Confessions of a Net Axon" ?
>>LOL! I see that you play the myelin?
>No. I studied piano.. and some guitar... no myelin <g>.
Showed plenty of potential then, eh? Myself, I prefer to play the
e-axonaphone, e-iontophoretically.
<snip>
>>Ah. You found the vibratome then, Dr. Schwarzenegger? How about "Slow
>>potential to Minnesota"?
>Well, I don't know it, but if you hum a few bars? <g>
It's in bMax, try it!
<snippily>
>>In article <an571479-250...@198.22.19.210>, Cognitee
>><an57...@anon.penet.fi> writes
>>Dear Leslie,
>>I want you to know that I consider you to have succeeded. I shall
>>henceforth be a model of propriety.
><still waiting>
The wait may be over?
[continues to scan horizon with Zeiss Jena product.]
--
Peter
Bill Goodrich
In article <Pine.ULT.3.95.960830...@isr.harvard.edu>,
Nancy Alvarado <alva...@wjh.harvard.edu> writes:
Your doubt is quite unjustified. For example, the "witch hunts" of the
17th century (in England and Europe) were, in part, an effort by the
"professional" physicians to drive the "parapro" midwives out of their
practice. Even older records show people going to the "wise mothers"
and the like for help when the priests were (for one reason or another)
not available. Similar accounts show up in asian and arabic cultures.
The "parapros" have apparently been there about as long as the "pros".
W.E. (Bill) Goodrich, PhD
*-----------------------*------------------------------------------------*
* CHANGE YOUR SEXUALITY * http://www.nyx.net/~bgoodric/ctg.html *
* * *
* Without Aversive * bgoo...@nyx.net *
* Behavior Modification * Creative Technology Group *
* or Drugs * PO Box 286 *
* * Englewood, CO 80151-0286 *
*-----------------------*------------------------------------------------*
Reth Hutt
lpa...@nyc.pipeline.com(Leslie E. Packer, PhD) wrote:
> I will never be silent in the face of such outrageous
>and unprofessional (IMO) conduct.)
>
>Leslie
Consistency, Integrity, Determination
Your (IMO) is shared by others.
Reth Hutt.
Nancy Alvarado
On 30 Aug 1996, Bill Goodrich wrote:
> In article <Pine.ULT.3.95.960830...@isr.harvard.edu>,
> Nancy Alvarado <alva...@wjh.harvard.edu> writes:
>
> >On 29 Aug 1996 dakl...@aol.com wrote:
>
> >> folk). Remember mankind did quite well before all you "professionals"
> >> came along.
>
> >Actually, mankind has always had "professionals." They were called
> >healers, shaman, medicine men, witch doctors, and priests. Mankind
> >considered them so essential that they exist in every culture, and were
> >generally given high social status (despite their occasional failures).
> >Walter Mischel's book on this subject is fascinating.
>
> >Doubt that anyone with a serious problem ever took it to a parapro in the
> >old days either.
>
> Your doubt is quite unjustified. For example, the "witch hunts" of the
> 17th century (in England and Europe) were, in part, an effort by the
> "professional" physicians to drive the "parapro" midwives out of their
> practice. Even older records show people going to the "wise mothers"
> and the like for help when the priests were (for one reason or another)
> not available. Similar accounts show up in asian and arabic cultures.
> The "parapros" have apparently been there about as long as the "pros".
>
>
> W.E. (Bill) Goodrich, PhD
Just to quibble, I think what you are describing is two sets of "pros"
fighting over jurisdiction, not parapros versus pros. The term parapro
implies someone trained in the same tradition but with a lesser amount of
training and consequently lesser status as a pro -- sort of a sorcerer's
apprentice. New learning always conflicts with old. Cultures conflict with
each other when they come into new contact. I think that's what's going
on with the examples you give above.
Even within a traditional system there are levels of competence. You might
approach your mother with one type of child-rearing problem, but move on
to the pediatrician if her advice didn't work. Similarly, someone might
use traditional healing remedies at first, then seek out someone with
stronger healing powers in that same tradition when the problem did not
respond. I would buy "mother" as a parapro, but not yesterday's midwives
as parapro doctors, except in today's medical training system where
midwives receive a subset of the instruction that obstetricians and nurses
receive.
The feminist interpretation of the witchhunts is not the only one. Few, if
any, of the witches hanged and incarcerated in Salem were midwives. (I
know this because I am now working in Salem and have recently visited the
museum there.) They were mostly enemies of the men in political power at
the time, particularly of the clergyman in whose home the bewitched girls
lived. No doctors were involved in the accusations or prosecutions.
Further, much of the persecution of witches in Europe was to punish those
belonging to sects espousing divergent religious beliefs or violating bans
on learning beyond the revealed truth of the Bible -- people like
astronomer Tycho Brahe who certainly was not a midwife.
Both of our points of view have support and are justified. I merely took
issue with the statement that people in the past did not use professional
healers. Of course they did. And my doubts were that anyone with a serious
problem would go to a lesser healer when someone with stronger magic was
around, regardless of the tradition in which that healer was trained. I
did not intend to disparage traditional healing, nor do I consider
traditional therapists to be parapros while APA types are professionals.
Lots of "alternative" physicians charge more than MDs and are in that
sense every bit as "professional" as their counterparts in the AMA.
If you define a professional as someone with a license, then I think you
are still wrong. Licensing boards have always existed, and guilds have
been stronger in the past than they are now. The strongest guild of all
would be a tribe in which only one shaman can practice and passes down his
or her knowledge to a selected successor. How does a Navajo healer learn
the art? Only from another healer and only after being accepted as a
student. To set up practice without knowing the rituals would be
impossible because no client would accept him (his healing wouldn't work).
Nancy
Peter
In article <503f0b$j...@news1.t1.usa.pipeline.com>,
lpa...@nyc.pipeline.com writes
>On Aug 29, 1996 01:58:46 in article <Re: stop lying brad>, 'Peter
><Pe...@brentano.demon.co.uk>' wrote:
>
>
>>In article <an571479-280...@198.22.19.206>, Cognitee
>><an57...@anon.penet.fi> writes
>>>Dera Leslie,
>>> I absolutely deny the charge that I sexually harass women.
>>
>>Do you?
>>
>>>I am glad you indicate the record is completely public
>>>(and has been posted in the newsgroups).
>>
>>Are you?
>>
>>>**IT IS** completely public.
>>
>>It is.
>>
>>>I have 2 posts that people have seen as "sexist," that's all.
>>>That is a far cry from "sexual" abuse and you know it.
>>
>>In your own words:
>>
>>[NoteToKillfileUsers <you.?@know.it>]
>>
>>>What you are doing is libel.
>
>From the American Heritage Dictionary:
>
>li·bel (lº“b…l) Law. n. 1.a. A false publication in writing, printing, or
>typewriting or in signs or pictures that maliciously damages a person's
>reputation. b. The act or an instance of presenting such a statement to the
>public. 2. The written claims presented by a plaintiff in an action at
>admiralty law or to an ecclesiastical court.
>Well, right off the bat, it can't be libel since his reputation here can't
>get any worse than it already is.
[Bat; cricket?] Certainly, no reputation worth speaking of. He might
need to use a new name.
>>In article <an571479-250...@198.22.19.210>, Cognitee
>><an57...@anon.penet.fi> writes
>>Dear Leslie,
>>I want you to know that I consider you to have succeeded. I shall
>>henceforth be a model of propriety.
>"Are you having a psychotic breakdown?" (Brad to Diane)
>Brad: how about explaining your _motivation_ for that question, since you
>said it would be good therapy to explain your motivation.
[?]
--
Peter
In article <an571479-250...@198.22.19.210>, Cognitee
<an57...@anon.penet.fi> writes
Dear Leslie,
I want you to know that I consider you to have succeeded. I shall
henceforth be a model of propriety.
<PARA-PROpriety?>
<Read Brad's lips, no new aliases?>
Peter
In article <8413540...@dejanews.com>, dakl...@aol.com writes
>In article <8411855...@dejanews.com> <500848$l...@news1.t1.usa.pipeline.com>,>> On Aug 27, 1996 22:55:12 in article <Re: stop lying brad>,
>> 'DAKL...@aol.com' wrote:
>Dearleslie,
>I do have DejaNews service. I went back and read over 100 posts between you and
>"brad". I believe that the essence of the debate between you two is the
>validaty of your profession from a scientific perspective. That seems to be the
>main point. "Brad" also seems to be making a case for "paraprofessionals"
>having a legitimate place in the "counseling" field. Each of you have sited
>various research articles to make a case.
And Brad's design was found wanting. If you disagree I suggest that you
discuss the design with Dr. Packer. That is, _if_ you are _capable_ of
holding your own, and I would suggest that most of us in here are
definitely not.
>I don't agree with the tactics used by either one of you. This "Brad" uses some
>inappropriate language at times. While you use cutting sarcasim and specious
>inuendos. Sexual harrassment? I read what you define as sexual harrassment.
>It seems that you have done the same thing as "Brad". You imply much bias
>toward men in your corresspondence. I guess what makes "Brads" comments "sexual
>harrassment" is that you are a woman. How pathetic.
Oooh, you'll have to do better than _that_. Go on, _say it_, _say it_.
<See the film 'Excalibur' if you want to know precisely how my voice
sounds just now.>
How pathetic. You don't have the benefit of my threaded newsreader;
everything happens in date order, and I saw Brad escalate. Moreover, Dr.
Packer is not the first to suffer from Brad. It has been fifteen months
<yes, 15> of this OK? So, go away, read, think, and review.
>Why don't you two either reengage in the original debate like two adults.
This is to miss the point; Brad and Dr. Packer discuss in methodological
debate, Brad loses, Brad insults, Dr. Packer "<laughs>" or "<smiles>"
[read polite response to flames and harassment], Brad then leaks parts
of Dr. Packer's personal addresses to the net, he incites people from
other groups to mail bomb her <a tactic he has employed with others>,
and uses his friend to threaten her viz. employement. How would _you_
feel if this happened to you? Would you enjoy it?
Think again, cocker. Your slap bang out of order. But there again,
knowing _you_ as well as I do, from looking at my data on
'DAKL...@aol.com', and knowing aol as well as I do, I smell herring, I
see rabbit, I hear grunting.
>Also,simply because someone agrees with parts of what "Brad" says (and I do)
>should not brand us with your judgemental broad brush. This reminds me of
>McCarthy's communism or the Salem witch hunts. Damned if you do damned if you
>don't. Grow up Dr. You may have something to learn from "paraprofessionals"
>and perhaps even "nonprofessionals" (i.e. the common folk). Remember mankind
>did quite well before all you "professionals" came along.
Judgmental broad brush? "Us". I SEE YOU! Cite the data. NOW. Wo/Mankind
was arranged in a different way way back, things are different now, we
have different problems, problems that are artefacts of society, and
thus need the societal priniciple of the division of labour/
specialisation for to be solved. McCarthy/Nixon? I smell more rabbit!
Read this:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Path: demon.co.uk!news.demon.co.uk!demon!peer-
news.britain.eu.net!EU.net!news.sprintlink.net!news.comp-
unltd.com!usenet
From: B Jesness <spa...@servco.com>
Newsgroups: sci.psychology.psychotherapy
Subject: Re: BradStats, January 1996
Date: 10 Jan 1996 04:16:20 GMT
Organization: Client Advocates
Lines: 9
Message-ID: <4cveik$q...@cu.comp-unltd.com>
References: <4bni9c$e...@gap.cco.caltech.edu> <4chmvk$i...@cu.comp-
unltd.com> <4c
mhd9$5...@stratus.skypoint.net> <4cmk30$p...@ratatosk.uio.no>
<4cmn2r$m35@cu.
comp-unltd.com> <4codqu$2...@ratatosk.uio.no> <4cpr8c$j...@cu.comp-
unltd.com>
<4cqjen$b...@ratatosk.uio.no> <4crdir$h...@cu.comp-unltd.com>
<4cro47$k...@ratatosk.uio.no> <4ct1vk$2...@cu.comp-unltd.com>
<4ctbha$s...@ratatosk.uio.no>
NNTP-Posting-Host: gln05.imt.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.12(Macintosh; I; PPC)
X-URL: news:4ctbha$s...@ratatosk.uio.no
P.S. Rolf, I think nobody "big" is participating because few others
who are "big" are here. This has likely been true all along and is not
my fault. People take note mainly of essays and papers, etc. in
refereed journals. Posting to newsgroups does not count. I am one of
the loftiest individuals around. You should be happy I'M HERE. Please
don't try to drive me off. It won't work anyway; I have the tenacity of
Nixon. -- B . J.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brad likes to talk about Nixon too. Funnily enough, I also have some
stuff on "retards" and Nixon. Brad doesn't like "retards". Brad likes
Nixon's attitude, too. Brad likes "big" names too. How come you don't?
>Finally. I do think you are some kind of a "1984" cybercop. You are too
>selfrighteous Dr. Take a humility pill.
[You take several hundred; I also prescribe some Epsom Salts, since
you're so obviously in need.]
Oh, "cybercop". That's good. That is good. Oh yes. Come one then, _say
it_.
You're in trouble now. Why? I'll tell you tomorrow, after Dr. Packer
has had first sight of my file on _you_. It's a _big_ one. Headers are
included in this file. _Anyone_ who supports Brad in this NG is in deep
tom tit. OK? Think about it. Let me know.
>sincerely,
Of course.
>DAK
Shorely Shome Mishtake Here?
>How about the Buffalo Bills? (major chookers)
[Major chokers for you, sun shiny day.]
--
Peter
Peter
In article <503evc$j...@news1.t1.usa.pipeline.com>,
lpa...@nyc.pipeline.com writes
>On Aug 28, 1996 23:37:04 in article <Re: stop lying brad>, 'Peter
><Pe...@brentano.demon.co.uk>' wrote:
>>In article <500848$l...@news1.t1.usa.pipeline.com>,
>>lpa...@nyc.pipeline.com writes
>>>Are you a sexual harasser? Do you send threatening letters? Are you
>>>personally abusive? Do you call disabled individuals "retards?"
>>>It the answers to the above are "yes," then my answer to you is "yes, I
>>>will try to get you blocked."
>>I suspect that you will not be alone in doing so.
>Suspect, heck. Others have written me that they are filing complaints,
>too. Complaints about harassment and personal abuse -- not about contents,
>but _style_.
Well, there was no content. Just like DAK.
>And Brad's comment to Diane U asking her if she was having a psychotic
>breakdown is exactly the kind of post that gets him in very serious
>trouble.
Absolutely. There is, is there not, something in the way that such
posters feel the cracks, try new techniques when old ones die?
>I cannot imagine someone who claims to be a counseling instructor and who
>claims that he almost has a masters in counseling asking such a question.
It loses me too. Now we have a 'new' player on the scene. Shall we
contact aol with the header data?
Bill Goodrich
In article <Pine.ULT.3.95.960830...@isr.harvard.edu>,
Nancy Alvarado <alva...@wjh.harvard.edu> writes:
>On 30 Aug 1996, Bill Goodrich wrote:
>> In article <Pine.ULT.3.95.960830...@isr.harvard.edu>,
>> Nancy Alvarado <alva...@wjh.harvard.edu> writes:
>> >On 29 Aug 1996 dakl...@aol.com wrote:
>> >> folk). Remember mankind did quite well before all you "professionals"
>> >> came along.
>> >Actually, mankind has always had "professionals." They were called
>> >healers, shaman, medicine men, witch doctors, and priests. Mankind
>> >considered them so essential that they exist in every culture, and were
>> >generally given high social status (despite their occasional failures).
>> >Walter Mischel's book on this subject is fascinating.
>> >Doubt that anyone with a serious problem ever took it to a parapro in the
>> >old days either.
>> Your doubt is quite unjustified. For example, the "witch hunts" of the
>> 17th century (in England and Europe) were, in part, an effort by the
>> "professional" physicians to drive the "parapro" midwives out of their
>> practice. Even older records show people going to the "wise mothers"
>> and the like for help when the priests were (for one reason or another)
>> not available. Similar accounts show up in asian and arabic cultures.
>> The "parapros" have apparently been there about as long as the "pros".
>Just to quibble, I think what you are describing is two sets of "pros"
>fighting over jurisdiction, not parapros versus pros. The term parapro
>implies someone trained in the same tradition but with a lesser amount
>of training and consequently lesser status as a pro -- sort of a
>sorcerer's apprentice.
While that sort of image is often invoked in the "turf battles", the
term is mostly applied to "non-chartered" individuals overlapping the
functions of a "chartered profession". For instance, in most States of
the US Hypnotherapists are considered paraprofessionals UNLESS they are
ALSO Licensed Psychologists (/LCSWs/LMFTs/LPCs, etc.), Psychiatrists, or
MDs. Likewise NLP practitioners, Religious Counselors (unless ordained
in their own right), etc. The group with the License (charter)
constitutes the "pros", and everybody else in the functional area is a
"parapro" IRRESPECTIVE of amount of training or experience.
Until WWII, psychologists were "parapros" in the therapeutic arena.
More recently, Clinical Social Workers and Marriage and Family Therapists
made the transition. Chiropractors are STILL considered "parapros" in
many quarters.
>New learning always conflicts with old. Cultures conflict with
>each other when they come into new contact. I think that's what's going
>on with the examples you give above.
No. Most of that was the tendency to try and eliminate effective rivals
for power, money, and/or recognition, and doing so on an organizational
and/or categorical basis.
>Even within a traditional system there are levels of competence. You
>might approach your mother with one type of child-rearing problem, but
>move on to the pediatrician if her advice didn't work. Similarly,
>someone might use traditional healing remedies at first, then seek out
>someone with stronger healing powers in that same tradition when the
>problem did not respond. I would buy "mother" as a parapro, but not
>yesterday's midwives as parapro doctors, except in today's medical
>training system where midwives receive a subset of the instruction
>that obstetricians and nurses receive.
Actually, many States have programs for (and recognition of) "Nurse
Midwives". More to the point, it addresses only your limited subset of
"parapros". The mothers aren't "parapros" in either use of the word,
they are acting privately within their families.
>The feminist interpretation of the witchhunts is not the only one. Few,
>if any, of the witches hanged and incarcerated in Salem were midwives.
Salem was a brief anomaly. Dozens (arguably hundreds) of the "witches"
killed in Scotland, England, Spain, and the areas which are now Germany
and Italy WERE midwives. Feminism has nothing to do with this fact.
>(I know this because I am now working in Salem and have recently
>visited the museum there.)
And I know from my examination of the records housed at the British
Museum (and other English repositories), the Egyptian Museum in Cairo,
and other places in the course of my work as an accredited historical
researcher (before I became a therapist), and of helping my wife in
her anthropological investigations.
>They were mostly enemies of the men in political power at the time,
>particularly of the clergyman in whose home the bewitched girls
>lived. No doctors were involved in the accusations or prosecutions.
...all of which took place in the context of an ergot-induced hysteria.
Yes, anybody vaguely interested in the Salem hysteria is quite aware of
all that.
>Further, much of the persecution of witches in Europe was to punish
^^^^^^^
>those belonging to sects espousing divergent religious beliefs or
>violating bans on learning beyond the revealed truth of the Bible --
>people like astronomer Tycho Brahe who certainly was not a midwife.
True but irrelevant. As with the Salem hysteria, the periodic purges
and Inquisitions were abused by those wishing to eliminate rivals. The
records are quite clear about the numbers of midwives denounced by
Physicians (or their surrogates).
>Both of our points of view have support and are justified. I merely
>took issue with the statement that people in the past did not use
>professional healers.
I neither made nor saw any such statement. I did see a statement that
there was a time when such "professionals" did not exist, and that
people did quite well without them. You seem to disagree with that
poster's definition of "professional" and that is fine, but you also
took the argument beyond the scope of the statement.
>Of course they did. And my doubts were that anyone with a serious
>problem would go to a lesser healer when someone with stronger magic
>was around, regardless of the tradition in which that healer was
>trained.
Unfortunately, that was not what you SAID. To wit:
N>Doubt that anyone with a serious problem ever took it to a parapro in
^^^^
N>the old days either.
Clearly, such people DID take their serious problems to those that even
YOU define as parapros (those with the lesser magic) when the "pros"
were not available (either not around, not approachable, or too
expensive (in terms of money, or otherwise)). And in terms of the more
common definition of "parapros", it is even more common.
>I did not intend to disparage traditional healing, nor do I consider
>traditional therapists to be parapros while APA types are professionals.
>Lots of "alternative" physicians charge more than MDs and are in that
>sense every bit as "professional" as their counterparts in the AMA.
That comes down to a confusion between two uses of "professional" in
the English language: you are using it in the same sense as professional
actors or professional writers, while the discussions center on the
definition "member of a recognized Profession".
>If you define a professional as someone with a license, then I think
>you are still wrong. Licensing boards have always existed, and guilds
>have been stronger in the past than they are now.
But the vast majority of the guilds addressed TRADES rather than
PROFESSIONS. And their descendents continue to do so. And contrary to
your assertion, "licensing boards" have existed for only a relatively
short time.
>The strongest guild of all would be a tribe in which only one shaman
>can practice and passes down his or her knowledge to a selected
>successor.
That is neither a guild nor a profession. That is simply the way any
specialized skill was handed from generation to generation. It is no
different than a drummer or a bowmaker. You seem to be confusing the
european-style profession of the Priesthood with the function of a
spiritual guide.
>How does a Navajo healer learn the art?
The same way a sand-painter does. Or a bow-maker. Or a silversmith.
>Only from another healer and only after being accepted as a student.
>To set up practice without knowing the rituals would be impossible
>because no client would accept him (his healing wouldn't work).
But in your "tribal" context, there is no such thing as "setting up
a practice" in any meaningful sense. Once again, you are apparently
confusing the status (as confered by one society) of a position with
the function of that position. In the end, that is what this discussion
is all about - status vs function, and attempts to use the former to
exclude others from the latter.
Nancy Alvarado
To recap:
I suggested that professional healers have always existed, in response to:
On 29 Aug 1996 dakl...@aol.com wrote:
folk). Remember mankind did quite well before all you
"professionals" came along.
saying:
Actually, mankind has always had "professionals." They were called
healers, shaman, medicine men, witch doctors, and priests. Mankind
I added:
Doubt that anyone with a serious problem ever took it to a parapro
in the old days either.
Bill Goodrich then said:
Your doubt is quite unjustified. For example, the "witch hunts" of
the 17th century (in England and Europe) were, in part, an effort
by the "professional" physicians to drive the "parapro" midwives
out of their practice. Even older records show people going to the
"wise mothers" and the like for help when the priests were (for
one reason or another) not available. Similar accounts show up in
asian and arabic cultures.
He and I both then said a bunch of other stuff that I have snipped.
From our respective posts it seems clear to me that any continuation of
this discussion needs agreement about the definition of "professional" and
"parapro" and some agreement about who is included and excluded from the
concept of traditional mental health healer. Bill sees priests as part of
some establishment comparable to today's licensed professions, whereas I
see them (widening the term from Catholic priest to any kind of priest) as
a traditional source of healing for people in the past. When midwives were
the main source of obstetrical care, I consider them to be the pros, not
parapros. That they have become parapros is a different issue. As I said,
times change and of course there is conflict between them. Maybe a pro
becomes a parapro when the knowledge base changes.
It might be better if we used the traditional definition of professional
as (1) someone with a body of knowledge inaccessible to the layman and
requiring specialized education, and (2) requiring a code of ethics to
protect clients from being victimized by their inability to evaluate the
quality of service provided (due to 1 above), and (3) requiring some
method of accreditation that ensures appropriate training and ethical
conduct has been observed. I think mental health healers (and other types
of healers) have always fit this definition even in primitive cultures
where there is no paper to write diplomas on.
His point that someone will take a serious problem to a parapro when
someone with stronger magic is not around seems to duck the question. If
I'm having a baby and I have to choose between a taxi driver and a
midwife, I'll take the midwife, but give me a board certified obstetrician
anytime. That past cultures did not have doctors is obvious, but that
doesn't mean that the midwives or other healers in those cultures did not
fill an equivalent slot in those cultures to what professionals play in
ours. That many types of healers exist, not all equally accredited by
mainstream culture, is to me a sign of cultural diversity (disagreement
about who provides the "best" care), not the preference for lesser healers
or parapros among some people. They all want the best care, but define
what that best consists of differently.
Turf wars have always existed, and of course they involve conflicts over
resources. Professionals need some means of support just as anyone does in
any society. However, part of the definition of a profession is that it
has a code of ethics, and that code of ethics frequently impels its
practitioners to be advocates for the welfare of their patients/clients.
That means eliminating competitors who appear to harm those people. The
motive is not always or even usually personal financial gain by
eliminating competitors, as you (and Brad) seem to imply. Doctors have not
always made large amounts of money (as they do today), and financial
motivation seems a specious explanation when applied to the 18th and 19th
century move toward professionalization of medicine, and present attempts
to upgrade the mental health profession. Further, doctors do not earn
large amounts (compared to other occupations) around the world, yet every
country has established professional standards for them.
Just because a Navajo healer learns his rituals from a more experienced
healer, does not make his body of knowledge equivalent to that of a
craftsman who also learns his skill from a more experienced craftsman.
Just because no licensing body exists to validate that healer's expertise,
does not mean the tribe isn't vitally concerned in whether that healer is
qualified to do his job. Nor does it mean there are no ethics about how he
must apply his knowledge. In the case of Navajo medicine, the AMA is in
the position of being parapro -- OK for trivial problems but when
something serious comes along, seek a native healer (for those who
believe). Licensing has nothing to do with this, especially in
non-literate cultures that do not use diplomas to demonstrate validity.
Bill's comment that my explanation of my remarks was not what I actually
said may be true, but I was also not considering the situation in which no
one except parapros would be present, largely because my definition of
professionals was not as exclusive as his. Why not accept the elaboration
as the truer version of my actual held beliefs? It is.
There is little point to arguing about whether his interpretation of my
earlier post was justified. Instead, let's work toward some mutual
understanding.
Nancy
Paul Bernhardt
In article <Pine.ULT.3.95.960830...@isr.harvard.edu>,
Nancy Alvarado <alva...@wjh.harvard.edu> wrote:
> The feminist interpretation of the witchhunts is not the only one. Few, if
> any, of the witches hanged and incarcerated in Salem were midwives. (I
> know this because I am now working in Salem and have recently visited the
> museum there.) They were mostly enemies of the men in political power at
> the time, particularly of the clergyman in whose home the bewitched girls
> lived. No doctors were involved in the accusations or prosecutions.
> Further, much of the persecution of witches in Europe was to punish those
> belonging to sects espousing divergent religious beliefs or violating bans
> on learning beyond the revealed truth of the Bible -- people like
> astronomer Tycho Brahe who certainly was not a midwife.
>
The story I heard just recently was the Salem witchhunts were based on a
political division between those located close to and distant from the
ocean ports. Almost all the accusers were located to the west and north in
the Salem area. Almost all of those accused were located to the east and
south. These two groups grew to have different goals as the ports
developed and the western group became concerned that their political
voice was at risk. The witchhunts were done to discredit the eastern
dwelling Salemites so that they would lose political clout. This may be
just more details on the story your were alluding to above. And I have no
idea if this story is considered the final word on the Salem witchhunts,
but it is intriguing and certainly plausible.
Paul Bernhardt
> >> On Aug 27, 1996 22:55:12 in article <Re: stop lying brad>,
> >> 'DAKL...@aol.com' wrote:
>
> >I don't agree with the tactics used by either one of you. This "Brad"
uses some
> >inappropriate language at times. While you use cutting sarcasim and
specious
> >inuendos. Sexual harrassment? I read what you define as sexual
harrassment.
> >It seems that you have done the same thing as "Brad". You imply much bias
> >toward men in your corresspondence. I guess what makes "Brads"
comments "sexual
> >harrassment" is that you are a woman. How pathetic.
>
Brad's sexually harrassing comments were not made just to women. He also
made them to me about 6 or 8 months back when he in anger suggested that
he would like to do something up my ass. I am a man and that was clearly a
sexually threatening expression. I made jokes in return because they would
put it in his face worse than direct attacking in response. You might want
to reconsider you use of the word pathetic in the paragraph above.
Mike Rael
Nancy,
As I was reading this post, I got the sense that you were saying
that because a Navajo healer can help tribesmen with depression,
perhaps, in his culture, he is the same as a "white man's healer?"
This sounds quite worrisome to me. The Navajo believes in healing
using Spirit Guides. The present crop of psychologists, for all their
many theoretical faults, at least believe that the solutions to the ills
of man have to be located in *this* world, not a ghostly realm!
The fact that a person's depression may go after seeing a Spirit
Doctor does not mean that, in the long run, he may be far worse for the
experience. I think of it as the blind leading the blind. When the person
who is led hears the friendly voice of the leader, all seems well. Doubt
and depression vanish...until both leader and led fall off a cliff!
Spirit guides do not help a person to develop the flexibility needed to
succeed in the modern world!
best always,
Mike
Mike Rael
la...@netcom.com
listowner, self-esteem-self-help
Nancy Alvarado (alva...@wjh.harvard.edu) wrote:
: To recap:
: saying:
: I added:
: Bill Goodrich then said:
: Nancy
--
Mike Rael
la...@netcom.com
listowner, self-esteem-self-help
To subscribe, email:list...@netcom.com No subject header
Message: subscribe self-esteem-self-help
"If you have a serious, ongoing problem, you will be referred to a
therapist of your choice. The listowner, while experienced in these
areas, is not a licensed therapist."
Nancy Alvarado
On 1 Sep 1996, Paul Bernhardt wrote:
> In article <Pine.ULT.3.95.960830...@isr.harvard.edu>,
> Nancy Alvarado <alva...@wjh.harvard.edu> wrote:
>
>
> > The feminist interpretation of the witchhunts is not the only one. Few, if
> > any, of the witches hanged and incarcerated in Salem were midwives. (I
> > know this because I am now working in Salem and have recently visited the
> > museum there.) They were mostly enemies of the men in political power at
> > the time, particularly of the clergyman in whose home the bewitched girls
> > lived. No doctors were involved in the accusations or prosecutions.
> > Further, much of the persecution of witches in Europe was to punish those
> > belonging to sects espousing divergent religious beliefs or violating bans
> > on learning beyond the revealed truth of the Bible -- people like
> > astronomer Tycho Brahe who certainly was not a midwife.
> >
>
> The story I heard just recently was the Salem witchhunts were based on a
> political division between those located close to and distant from the
> ocean ports. Almost all the accusers were located to the west and north in
> the Salem area. Almost all of those accused were located to the east and
> south. These two groups grew to have different goals as the ports
> developed and the western group became concerned that their political
> voice was at risk. The witchhunts were done to discredit the eastern
> dwelling Salemites so that they would lose political clout. This may be
> just more details on the story your were alluding to above. And I have no
> idea if this story is considered the final word on the Salem witchhunts,
> but it is intriguing and certainly plausible.
>
> +=============================================================+
> Paul C. Bernhardt, M.S. in Social Psychology (non-clinical)
> +=============================================================+
>
Yes, but then as the accusations gained momentum and there was less
"evidence" against some of those being accused, those who raised doubts or
tried to defend the victims were themselves accused. The local sheriff
became one of the people considered a witch when he thought things were
going too far.
The ergot-induced hysteria theory has not been substantiated.
The witch hunt actually took place in Salem Village, not present day
Salem. They were so ashamed that they later changed their name to Danvers.
Nancy
John M Price
In addition to the name change, the townspeople apologized, and paid some
restitution to the victims' families.
I have yet to see that in the hunts of this modern era, i.e. McCarthy
looking for communists and any of the various sex-crime fiascoes
(Wannatchee comes immediately to mind).
Nancy Alvarado (alva...@wjh.harvard.edu) wrote:
:
:
: On 1 Sep 1996, Paul Bernhardt wrote:
:
: > In article <Pine.ULT.3.95.960830...@isr.harvard.edu>,
: > Nancy Alvarado <alva...@wjh.harvard.edu> wrote:
: >
: >
: > > The feminist interpretation of the witchhunts is not the only one. Few, if
: > > any, of the witches hanged and incarcerated in Salem were midwives. (I
: > > know this because I am now working in Salem and have recently visited the
: > > museum there.) They were mostly enemies of the men in political power at
: > > the time, particularly of the clergyman in whose home the bewitched girls
: > > lived. No doctors were involved in the accusations or prosecutions.
: > > Further, much of the persecution of witches in Europe was to punish those
: > > belonging to sects espousing divergent religious beliefs or violating bans
: > > on learning beyond the revealed truth of the Bible -- people like
: > > astronomer Tycho Brahe who certainly was not a midwife.
: > >
: >
: > The story I heard just recently was the Salem witchhunts were based on a
: > political division between those located close to and distant from the
: > ocean ports. Almost all the accusers were located to the west and north in
: > the Salem area. Almost all of those accused were located to the east and
: > south. These two groups grew to have different goals as the ports
: > developed and the western group became concerned that their political
: > voice was at risk. The witchhunts were done to discredit the eastern
: > dwelling Salemites so that they would lose political clout. This may be
: > just more details on the story your were alluding to above. And I have no
: > idea if this story is considered the final word on the Salem witchhunts,
: > but it is intriguing and certainly plausible.
: >
: > +=============================================================+
: > Paul C. Bernhardt, M.S. in Social Psychology (non-clinical)
: > +=============================================================+
: >
:
: Yes, but then as the accusations gained momentum and there was less
: "evidence" against some of those being accused, those who raised doubts or
: tried to defend the victims were themselves accused. The local sheriff
: became one of the people considered a witch when he thought things were
: going too far.
:
: The ergot-induced hysteria theory has not been substantiated.
:
: The witch hunt actually took place in Salem Village, not present day
: Salem. They were so ashamed that they later changed their name to Danvers.
:
: Nancy
:
--
John M. Price, PhD jmp...@calweb.com jmp...@worldnet.att.net
Privacy IS Freedom!
PGP Key on request or by finger!
Decimal Point
In article <lakidDx...@netcom.com> la...@netcom.com (Mike Rael) writes:
>From: la...@netcom.com (Mike Rael)
>Subject: Re: before "professionals" came along
>Date: Sun, 1 Sep 1996 05:00:23 GMT
>Nancy,
> As I was reading this post, I got the sense that you were saying
>that because a Navajo healer can help tribesmen with depression,
>perhaps, in his culture, he is the same as a "white man's healer?"
> This sounds quite worrisome to me. The Navajo believes in healing
>using Spirit Guides. The present crop of psychologists, for all their
>many theoretical faults, at least believe that the solutions to the ills
>of man have to be located in *this* world, not a ghostly realm!
> The fact that a person's depression may go after seeing a Spirit
>Doctor does not mean that, in the long run, he may be far worse for the
>experience. I think of it as the blind leading the blind. When the person
>who is led hears the friendly voice of the leader, all seems well. Doubt
>and depression vanish...until both leader and led fall off a cliff!
>Spirit guides do not help a person to develop the flexibility needed to
>succeed in the modern world!
>best always,
>Mike
Mike: I think you should look at your statements above. Is the Navajo's
culture not part of what the healer is addressing - therefore that would seem
to suggest the potential of success in the modern Navajo world. In the white
mans modern world psychology and drugs are not always an indication of
"flexibility needed to succeed in the modern world" either and depression
might subside for awhile and then return. There are no guarantees and nothing
that possitively works for everyone in our real world. There is a need to
include all things that MAY have potential to help.
Sincerely
D.Barker
Nancy Alvarado
On 1 Sep 1996, John M Price wrote:
> In addition to the name change, the townspeople apologized, and paid some
> restitution to the victims' families.
>
> I have yet to see that in the hunts of this modern era, i.e. McCarthy
> looking for communists and any of the various sex-crime fiascoes
> (Wannatchee comes immediately to mind).
>
Yes, Sean Penn was on the radio the other day talking about what his
family went through when his father was blacklisted from directing during
the McCarthy era.
Tolman is one of my personal heroes, not just because I like his
psychology, but because he refused to sign the mandatory loyalty oath at
Berkeley. He was removed from his job for 5 years as a result.
My father lost his job in a print shop during that same time period simply
because my mother was taking Russian language classes in night school. She
wanted to read Doestoyevsky and Tolstoy in the original rather than in
translation. So this hysteria affected everyday people as well as famous
ones. Do you think that the discovery in Russian archives that spies were
actually operating in the U.S. will decrease the likelihood of any
apology?
Nancy
Ember Beck
On Sun, 1 Sep 1996, Mike Rael wrote:
> Nancy,
> As I was reading this post, I got the sense that you were saying
> that because a Navajo healer can help tribesmen with depression,
> perhaps, in his culture, he is the same as a "white man's healer?"
Mike,
I snipped the rest of this post because of it's personally offensive
nature to me...you see, I'm part Choctaw....too far back to have a tribal
connection any more, but the blood is there...
I can't believe you had the nerve to say something this racist......
And expect an apology...
Ember
Mike Rael
Dee, let's be clear about this, OK?
Fantasy work, subpersonality work, all are grist for the aspiring
psychologist. A psychologist might use the idea of spirit guides as a way
to elicit importnat information, particularly if the client was a Navajo.
All that is within the legitimate province of psychology.
However, it's one thing to use a concept in order to elicit
information or provoke a response, and it's quite another to say that,
because we *feel* the concept of a Spirit Guide do deeply, that means it
*must* exist. That latter attitude is antithetical to science as such. I
might feel that making a rain dance is going to cause rain, but the
scientist looks for a causal link. I might feel there is a ghost pulling
the strings of my personality, maybe I'd feel it deeply, but that has
*nothing* to do with the actual existence of a ghost!
best,
Mike
Decimal Point (bar...@azstarnet.com) wrote:
: In article <lakidDx...@netcom.com> la...@netcom.com (Mike Rael) writes:
: >From: la...@netcom.com (Mike Rael)
: >Subject: Re: before "professionals" came along
: >Date: Sun, 1 Sep 1996 05:00:23 GMT
: >Nancy,
: > As I was reading this post, I got the sense that you were saying
: >that because a Navajo healer can help tribesmen with depression,
: >perhaps, in his culture, he is the same as a "white man's healer?"
: > This sounds quite worrisome to me. The Navajo believes in healing
: >best always,
: >Mike
--
Mike Rael
la...@netcom.com
listowner, self-esteem-self-help
To subscribe, email:list...@netcom.com No subject header
Mike Rael
Ember.
Do you ever get tired of looking for ways to be insulted?
No insult was intended.
I'm pointing out that learning about Spirit Guides is not the
same as trying to get an 8 year education in theoretical psychology!
best,
Mike
Ember Beck (em...@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu) wrote:
: On Sun, 1 Sep 1996, Mike Rael wrote:
: > Nancy,
: > As I was reading this post, I got the sense that you were saying
: > that because a Navajo healer can help tribesmen with depression,
: > perhaps, in his culture, he is the same as a "white man's healer?"
: Mike,
: I snipped the rest of this post because of it's personally offensive
: nature to me...you see, I'm part Choctaw....too far back to have a tribal
: connection any more, but the blood is there...
: I can't believe you had the nerve to say something this racist......
: And expect an apology...
: Ember
Mike Rael
Yep, Silke,
You *are* bitchy:)
If a psychoanalyst believes that fantasies are real, what is
there to distinguish that analyst from the schizophrenic who doesn't
distinuguish between fantasy and "reality?" Do you even admit that there
is such a thing as "realist?" Perhaps we are all figments of your
imagination? Even more attractively, perhaps you are a figment of *my*
imagination??:)
I'm sure you can find a whole bunch of books and articles
attesting the beauty, importance, dignity and truth (we must never forget
that notion) of failth healing. It's like this Silke: if I have a pain in
my gut, I'll see a doctor. I pray that if you do, you will see a medical
doctor, not a Christian scientist or a shaman!
Atheism can be a faith. Anything can. But, Silke, dear beloved
Silke, O Sillkey apostole of Reason, a moment ago you were saying that a
good analyst accepts fantasies as real. Why then, Silke, do you not
accept the possibility of atheism?
Cheers,
PS: I don't know. I'm beginning to enjoy the use of sarcasm,
occasionally, as a conscious defense. It can be fun, huh?:)
Silke-Maria Weineck (wein...@mail2.sas.upenn.edu) wrote:
: Mike Rael (la...@netcom.com) wrote:
: : Nancy,
: : As I was reading this post, I got the sense that you were saying
: : that because a Navajo healer can help tribesmen with depression,
: : perhaps, in his culture, he is the same as a "white man's healer?"
: : This sounds quite worrisome to me. The Navajo believes in healing
: : using Spirit Guides. The present crop of psychologists, for all their
: : many theoretical faults, at least believe that the solutions to the ills
: : of man have to be located in *this* world, not a ghostly realm!
: "At least"? The spirit, then, you say, is not part of "this" world? Or
: merely that it isn't part of your world? In which case you are somewhat
: poorer but might perhaps lead a decent life with some luck? Like that?
: For someone who believes in the spiritual, the spiritual _is_ "this
: world"; just as for a decent therapist with some psychoanalytic
: schooling, fantasies are real, and different fantasies have different
: results in "this world." So what makes you so superior? In German, there
: could be nice punning here, since the word for fantasy is the same as for
: imagination.
: : The fact that a person's depression may go after seeing a Spirit
: : Doctor does not mean that, in the long run, he may be far worse for the
: : experience. I think of it as the blind leading the blind.
: You don't think at all, I'm sorry to say -- which is okay as long as you
: keep your non-thinking non-offensive. Apart from the fact that even the
: most Western of doctors have come to accept the phenomenon of
: faith-healing; there are quite a few articles now on the relation between
: religion and therapy and how it can be made fruitful. A religious client
: would crumble in your care.
: I must say, this post brings up unpleasant memories from a few
: weeks back, involving the list-member who had trouble with your "atheism"
: (which can be a particular [ob]noxious breed of unquestioned faith).
: When the person
: : who is led hears the friendly voice of the leader, all seems well. Doubt
: : and depression vanish...until both leader and led fall off a cliff!
: : Spirit guides do not help a person to develop the flexibility needed to
: : succeed in the modern world!
: Well, gee, Mike, we can't all be as admirably flexible as you demonstrate
: yourself to be over and over again.
: Yeah, I know I'm bitchy.
: Silke
Ember Beck
On Mon, 2 Sep 1996, Mike Rael wrote:
> Ember.
> Do you ever get tired of looking for ways to be insulted?
> No insult was intended.
> I'm pointing out that learning about Spirit Guides is not the
> same as trying to get an 8 year education in theoretical psychology!
>
> best,
> Mike
Mike,
A. Those who know me know that I am thickskinned; I must be in my line
of work...so no, I don't look for ways to be insulted.
B. When prejucial thinking is presented to me in such a neat package,
hwoeve, I hope I will be able to confront it.
You and I have differing beliefs about many things; at no point have I
spoken to you or aabout you in a manner similar to this. This is the
first time I've really been emotionally bothered by what you said.
Finally, I discussed my feelings about your posting with a man who is
white, agnostic and about your age (trying to make sure I talked with
someone who matched you demographically somewhat) to
make sure I was not being reactive. He agreed with my assessment.
So, whatever you 'meant', you were being prejudicial...I still expect an
apology...
Ember
Decimal Point
Mike:
I am very clear about what you are trying to say. I take nothing away from
you as a professional. I appreciate how long and pain staking a process it is
to learn your trade/art/science. Science and sociological belief should be
able to work hand in hand though or the science will not be accepted by the
culture you are proposing it to. I believe all through history there are
examples of scientists who have been astounded by the close links/connections
of present day proven scientistic fact and what the shamen/priests etc etc
have been saying for a very long time.
Don't worry so much Mike - it can enhance your scientific endevour! It
can compliment if you allow it to. I also realize that if as you describe to
Silke I am in pain I will first turn to a DR. of Medicine but I have many
more alternatives today and I will use all that are available and the ones
that will DO NO HARM will be tops on my list.
Sincerely,
D.Barker
In article <lakidDx...@netcom.com> la...@netcom.com (Mike Rael) writes:
>From: la...@netcom.com (Mike Rael)
>Subject: Re: before "professionals" came along
>Date: Mon, 2 Sep 1996 10:43:14 GMT
>Dee, let's be clear about this, OK?
> Fantasy work, subpersonality work, all are grist for the aspiring
>psychologist. A psychologist might use the idea of spirit guides as a way
>to elicit importnat information, particularly if the client was a Navajo.
>All that is within the legitimate province of psychology.
> However, it's one thing to use a concept in order to elicit
>information or provoke a response, and it's quite another to say that,
>because we *feel* the concept of a Spirit Guide do deeply, that means it
>*must* exist. That latter attitude is antithetical to science as such. I
>might feel that making a rain dance is going to cause rain, but the
>scientist looks for a causal link. I might feel there is a ghost pulling
>the strings of my personality, maybe I'd feel it deeply, but that has
>*nothing* to do with the actual existence of a ghost!
>best,
>Mike
>Decimal Point (bar...@azstarnet.com) wrote:
>: In article <lakidDx...@netcom.com> la...@netcom.com (Mike Rael) writes:
>: >From: la...@netcom.com (Mike Rael)
>: >Subject: Re: before "professionals" came along
>: >Date: Sun, 1 Sep 1996 05:00:23 GMT
>: >Nancy,
>: > As I was reading this post, I got the sense that you were saying
>: >that because a Navajo healer can help tribesmen with depression,
>: >perhaps, in his culture, he is the same as a "white man's healer?"
>: > This sounds quite worrisome to me. The Navajo believes in healing
>: >using Spirit Guides. The present crop of psychologists, for all their
>: >many theoretical faults, at least believe that the solutions to the ills
>: >of man have to be located in *this* world, not a ghostly realm!
>: > The fact that a person's depression may go after seeing a Spirit
>: >Doctor does not mean that, in the long run, he may be far worse for the
>: >experience. I think of it as the blind leading the blind. When the person
>: >who is led hears the friendly voice of the leader, all seems well. Doubt
>: >and depression vanish...until both leader and led fall off a cliff!
>: >Spirit guides do not help a person to develop the flexibility needed to
>: >succeed in the modern world!
>: >best always,
>: >Mike
>: Mike: I think you should look at your statements above. Is the Navajo's
>: culture not part of what the healer is addressing - therefore that would seem
>: to suggest the potential of success in the modern Navajo world. In the white
>: mans modern world psychology and drugs are not always an indication of
>: "flexibility needed to succeed in the modern world" either and depression
>: might subside for awhile and then return. There are no guarantees and nothing
>: that possitively works for everyone in our real world. There is a need to
>: include all things that MAY have potential to help.
>: Sincerely
>: D.Barker
>: >Mike Rael
>: >la...@netcom.com
>: >listowner, self-esteem-self-help
>
John Clark
In article <Pine.ULT.3.95.96090...@isr.harvard.edu>,
Nancy Alvarado <alva...@wjh.harvard.edu> wrote:
>
>My father lost his job in a print shop during that same time period simply
>because my mother was taking Russian language classes in night school. She
>wanted to read Doestoyevsky and Tolstoy in the original rather than in
>translation. So this hysteria affected everyday people as well as famous
German is a popular language to be subversive in the US with. While obviously
being 'touched' by Russian was dangerous, during WWI german was outlawed,
including public religious events... Then there was seizing of property
but that was justified as war appropriations...
Even still occasion some wyrd things happen just at the mention of an interest
in the language... one is accused of being a nazi sympathizer, culpable for
the holocaust, and bent on order for the sake of order... Of course now
learning Russian one can claim to be preparing to spread the Good News of
Capitalist Self-Sufficency...
And of course no amount of 'Well, I'm also picking up Yiddish', or
'My period of interest is the Weimar Republic, and how a civilized country
can go berzerk through demagoguery, and what that may say for the current
polarization of the american politcal scene'... will remedy the situation...
(Although a slightly embarased 'I had to for my foreign language requirement
for a PhD in Math' may work... as there was tons of math talked about in
german for the last century until just before WWII....)
>ones. Do you think that the discovery in Russian archives that spies were
>actually operating in the U.S. will decrease the likelihood of any
>apology?
Perhaps a more topical question is how long should a national sense of guilt
be maintained? I'm thinking here that often one hears from 'young' germans
'We had nothing to do with Nazis, so why should everone else think we
'closet' ones'. ('young' here means pretty much any one under 60 or 70
as any one who voted for the nazis is now at least 80, or dead...)
Peter
Ember, perhaps I'm wrong, but I wondered if this is a reflection of
respect for ancestors? Genetic? Recently a number of American
aboriginals <I believe this is now regarded as the proper and polite
term?> came to England. They wanted to recover the body of one who had
been kept for 'display'. Such was the strength of their respect for
their ancestors. Powerful. I think that Mike has fallen into what we
english call a 'ha-ha'; a deep hole in the ground that is hard to
detect.
It's a long time since I did my B.Sc., so I'll stand corrected on what
follows. This debate <professionalism> has sparked off a number of
thoughts in me. I note that there's been talk of the status of witches
and such in days gone by, in Europe and other places.
I haven't yet heard anything about the apprenticeship system that
started, at least in my country, hundreds of years ago. I also haven't
heard anything about the definition of a 'witch', or 'healer', and the
picture is different to myth. Nor have I heard of the training required
to be a 'witch'.
I do know that the old, wrinkled, warty, magic-emitting hag is a
misnomer, as is the siren. Perhaps we should blame the likes of
Shakespeare? Or should we blame the christian church, which placed its
centres of worship on significant sites of pagan worship, which placed
some of its significant religious dates over pagan ones, including the
canonising of local saints?
As I understand it, so called 'traditional' healers were pre-doctors.
Who else was there? No medical schools then. In England they used <i.e.>
comfrey <'knit-bone'> to assist bone repair <still used, I gather>,
'skullcap' and other dangerous plant extracts to induce sleep in the
sick <I can attest to the effectiveness of skull-cap>, and in India I
believe the Rauwolfia <sp?> plant was used as an anti-psychotic. A good
one, I gather. Obviously I am not talking about apothecaries, sorcerers,
alchemists. Such healers could also be matchmakers, counsellors...
..conflicts had to be resolved, even then. In fact the term 'counsellor'
has an older meaning than that we currently employ.
This discussion implicitly treads around cultural relativism. The 'third
world', technology, science, etc.. Again, correct me if I'm wrong, but
isn't the overall remission rate for mental illness <particularly the
psychoses> slightly better in the 'third world'? Why? Support
mechanisms?
In soc. anthropol. I learned how the discipline moved forward from
Evans-Pritchard's view - which was fairly enlightened for its time - of
the Zande <i.e.> as holders of false beliefs, to the supposedly
'neutral' view, to the Darwinist. Indeed, there are now practitioners of
a 'new' Darwinist medicine in the 'first world'. They recommend <i.e.>
_not_ taking analgesics to reduce the temperature of the virally
infected, for example. Doesn't this chime with 'old wives tales', and
the sweating out of illness? Better medicine than some of the horrors
inflicted by 'physicians'... ...and the 'do nothing' philosophy of late
19th ct. Austro-Hungarian doctors.
From a <I hope> more distant Darwinistic perspective, I try to view the
'witch' and the 'healer' and other more functionally, as well as
remembering features that might appeal to the scientifically and
technologically minded. I think that in collections of hominids a
hierarchy develops, and I think that there is a reason for it.
One might wish to argue that 'witches' and 'healers' would be subject to
due process of selection; if so, how did they endure? They didn't simply
dance around calling for rain. <Offence not intended.> Perhaps time has
altered the presenting reasons for dietary customs <choice of meat, how
prepared>, and customs regulating social behaviour, although the plane
of western 'civilisation' and technology wears regional behviours thin
or out, hypergamous marriage <a form of polyandry> in the martial Nyar
being an interesting example, although they have apparently reverted to
pre-brit beh..
I think that American aboriginals faced a different set of problems to
those we do. I think they developed their own ways of dealing with them.
Here is a unique opportunity for a middle aged englishman to learn about
this, to dispel the celluloid myths he learned as a child...
Mike, now that we finally have peace in this ng perhaps rather than
seeing mangu in the entrails of the past, perhaps we can celebrate
professional peace in our time <s>.
Irony; this has been typed by someone with Heinz 57 origins, including
woad-painters, some of whose antecedents almost certainly massacred
American aboriginals in their hundreds. The internet... ...time to
learn, to bury hatchets before they are thrown?
In article <Pine.OSF.3.91.960902080653.21911A-
100...@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu>, Ember Beck <em...@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu> writes
>> best,
>> Mike
>Mike,
--
Peter
Bill Goodrich
In article <Pine.ULT.3.95.960831...@isr.harvard.edu>,
Nancy Alvarado <alva...@wjh.harvard.edu> writes:
>To recap:
>I suggested that professional healers have always existed, in
>response to:
> On 29 Aug 1996 dakl...@aol.com wrote:
> folk). Remember mankind did quite well before all you
> "professionals" came along.
>saying:
> Actually, mankind has always had "professionals." They were called
> healers, shaman, medicine men, witch doctors, and priests. Mankind
>I added:
> Doubt that anyone with a serious problem ever took it to a parapro
> in the old days either.
>Bill Goodrich then said:
> Your doubt is quite unjustified. For example, the "witch hunts" of
> the 17th century (in England and Europe) were, in part, an effort
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> by the "professional" physicians to drive the "parapro" midwives
> out of their practice. Even older records show people going to the
> "wise mothers" and the like for help when the priests were (for
> one reason or another) not available. Similar accounts show up in
> asian and arabic cultures.
>He and I both then said a bunch of other stuff that I have snipped.
Some of which has been restored below (indicated by ":").
>From our respective posts it seems clear to me that any continuation of
>this discussion needs agreement about the definition of "professional"
>and "parapro" and some agreement about who is included and excluded
>from the concept of traditional mental health healer. Bill sees priests
>as part of some establishment comparable to today's licensed
professions,
>whereas I see them (widening the term from Catholic priest to any kind
>of priest) as a traditional source of healing for people in the past.
You are welcome to see them as including redheads and fishmongers if
you want, but such H. Dumpty linguistics does nothing to resolve
matters. I use the term as it has been used for over 400 years in the
English language, as dakluvsjc seemed to be doing.
[...]
>It might be better if we used the traditional definition of professional
>as (1) someone with a body of knowledge inaccessible to the layman and
>requiring specialized education, and (2) requiring a code of ethics to
>protect clients from being victimized by their inability to evaluate the
>quality of service provided (due to 1 above), and (3) requiring some
>method of accreditation that ensures appropriate training and ethical
>conduct has been observed.
After a brief review of both my own Historical library and my wife's
anthropological resources, I have found absolutely NO support for any
society, past or present, maintaining such a "traditional" definition.
While there IS a secondary definition of "performing a function for
pay", the primary definition (in those societies which recognized
professionals and professions at all) has consistently been "member of
a Recognized Profession". And the definition of a Recognized Profession
has involved:
(1) a function administered by an organization, AND
(2) that function involves a specialized body of knowledge, AND
(3) said organization transcends the existing social structure(s), AND
(4) the functionaries ("professionals") are accredited by, and
answerable to, said organization (often to a greater extent than to
local authorities), AND
(5) the authority and scope of the organization derives from BOTH the
functionaries AND the "outside" authorities.
Thus, silversmiths were not Professionals - their organization was not
transcendent. Midwives were not Professionals - no organization. Most
NA shamen were/are not Professionals - no transcendent organization. Not
all religious figures, healers, legal advocated, or educators are
Professionals (even when they "do their thing" for pay) in the relevant
sense, even though our society Recognizes such Professions as
"Priesthood"/"Ministry", Medicine/Psychology, Law, and (certain forms of)
Education. In societies which do not recognize such transcendent
organizations, there are no such things as Professionals. In societies
which DID not recognize such transcendent organizations, there WERE no
such things as Professionals. There ARE and WERE individuals in such
societies who "Professionals" of other societies choose to recognize
as their EQUIVALENTS (according to the standards of the Professionals'
society), but no Professionals (OR Professions) in their own right.
>I think mental health healers (and other types
>of healers) have always fit this definition even in primitive cultures
>where there is no paper to write diplomas on.
But NOT the definition of Professionals.
>His point that someone will take a serious problem to a parapro when
>someone with stronger magic is not around seems to duck the question.
There you go again, Nancy... (shades of 1980). First you answered a
point about the "witch hunts" IN 17th CENTURY ENGLAND and EUROPE with
a comment about a small event in the US, and now you accuse me of
making YOUR OWN limited statement. I do *NOT* take well to being
misrepresented in that way. YOU spoke of when such people were "not
around". I answered with:
:Clearly, such people DID take their serious problems to those that
:even YOU define as parapros (those with the lesser magic) when the
:"pros" were not available (either not around, not approachable, or
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^
:too expensive (in terms of money, or otherwise)). And in terms of
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
:the more common definition of "parapros", it is even more common.
>If I'm having a baby and I have to choose between a taxi driver and a
>midwife, I'll take the midwife, but give me a board certified
>obstetrician anytime.
Interesting choice of example, given the numbers in which women are
flocking to midwives (and other birthing parapros) these days, in places
where the Ob/Gyns are a dime a dozen. That YOU do not profess such a
choice is irrelevant (in any but a personal sense). Even today, people
take their concerns to "parapros" irrespective of the availability of
corresponding "Professionals". Even when the "Professionals" are
available at little or no (out of pocket) cost.
>That past cultures did not have doctors is obvious, but that
>doesn't mean that the midwives or other healers in those cultures did
>not fill an equivalent slot in those cultures to what professionals
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>play in ours.
^^^^^^^^^^^^
True but irrelevant, as outlined above. They are NOT "Professionals" -
they are simply Professional-equivalents (as you acknowlege).
>That many types of healers exist, not all equally accredited by
>mainstream culture, is to me a sign of cultural diversity (disagreement
>about who provides the "best" care), not the preference for lesser healers
>or parapros among some people. They all want the best care, but define
>what that best consists of differently.
A pretty speech, but irrelevant. Especially given the difference between
the relevant definitions and those parodies you choose to employ.
>Turf wars have always existed, and of course they involve conflicts
>over resources.
Have you ever noticed the way some people preface their least-supported
points with phrases like "of course"? Unless you are using a VERY broad
definition of "resources" - one which includes power, status, etc. - you
are not entirely correct.
>Professionals need some means of support just as anyone does in any
>society.
Without question. But virtually irrelevant to the points at hand.
>However, part of the definition of a profession is that it
>has a code of ethics,
YOUR personal definition, perhaps. While it is a common element among
many professions in many societies, it is NOT a defining point.
>and that code of ethics frequently impels its practitioners to be
>advocates for the welfare of their patients/clients. That means
>eliminating competitors who appear to harm those people.
While many such "battles" have been couched in such terms (for PR
reasons), that has RARELY been a central issue addressed in internal
discussions and documents, and it has rarely been an issue that such
actions were clearly intended to address.
Some time ago I had the misfortune of discussing historical
interpretations with someone on the 'net who insisted (quite vehemently)
that the Civil War was fought over slavery, just as he had been taught
in school. No amount of information about the political and economic
disenfranchisement of the South prior to the war would sway him. He was
arguing from a "strong" position of historical ignorance, and nothing
so unimportant as mere facts would convince him. He derived his arguments
from that "core belief" by speculation and "reasonable" assumptions. And
he was wrong in virtually every particular. Finally, others in the group
flooded him with historical resources (via email) and he "quit the field"
by moving on to other newsgroups and other subjects.
I no longer have much patience for such naive and baseless arguments.
>The motive is not always or even usually personal financial gain by
>eliminating competitors, as you (and Brad) seem to imply.
There's another one.
Now that you think about it, if the only way you can make your point is
by lying about the other person's statements and attempting "discredit
by association," is that point REALLY worth making? What do such cheap
shots REALLY do to your position?
I did not "imply" ANYTHING about their motivation - I explicitly stated:
:Most of that was the tendency to try and eliminate effective rivals
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
:for power, money, and/or recognition, and doing so on an organizational
^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^
:and/or categorical basis.
...in the portion of my article you so conveniently left out.
>Doctors have not always made large amounts of money (as they do today),
>and financial motivation seems a specious explanation when applied to
>the 18th and 19th century move toward professionalization of medicine,
Since I had not done so, the observation is entirely irrelevant to
evaluating the *16th Century* (and beyond) move toward
"professionalization of medicine" as you term it. While it is accurate
to observe that the move was motivated more by categorical Power and
Prestige than by "personal financial gain", it is also relevant to note
that such considerations were far more valuable than money at that time.
>and present attempts to upgrade the mental health profession.
What an interesting turn of phrase. So the attempts (by the
psychiatrists) to disenfranchise the psychologists after WWII were just
intended to "upgrade" the profession to the pre-WWII level. As were the
campaigns to eliminate the Hypnotherapists, Clinical Social Workers,
Marriage and Family Therapists, and the other psychotherapeutic
"outsiders" over the years. Forgive my mirth, but over the last quarter
century or so I have been directly involved in several such battles, and
I can tell you for a fact that NONE of them came from an ethics-based
desire to "upgrade" the profession - despite "press releases" to the
contrary. NOR were they aimed at groups that "appear to harm" patients/
clients (again, despite pr attempts to the contrary).
>Further, doctors do not earn large amounts (compared to other
>occupations) around the world, yet every country has established
>professional standards for them.
Teachers earn FAR less, yet the same is true for them. You are wasting
your time and bandwidth on your own "money" straw man. And by your own
definitions, such societal standards are irrelevant (in the face of
Professional standards).
>Just because a Navajo healer learns his rituals from a more experienced
>healer, does not make his body of knowledge equivalent to that of a
>craftsman who also learns his skill from a more experienced craftsman.
Another interesting attempt. However, the inverse is true: Just because
the "anglo" equivalent of the healer utilizes a more prestigeous and
extensive body of knowledge than the anglo equivalent of the craftsman,
does not make the healer significantly different than the craftsman
WITHIN the Navajo culture. While those similarities can blind YOUR eyes
to the situation, it does not affect THEM all that much.
And the same is true for my own people (the Creek, to use the English
designation), even though our healers follow a somewhat different path
than the Pueblo peoples'.
>Just because no licensing body exists to validate that healer's
>expertise, does not mean the tribe isn't vitally concerned in whether
>that healer is qualified to do his job.
But it DOES affect whether he is a "Professional" (not that he is all
that likely to care). Nor does the fact that *YOU* equate his position
with that of an anglo "Professional" have any bearing on his expertise,
qualifications, or evaluation by the tribe.
>Nor does it mean there are no ethics about how he must apply his
>knowledge.
Yet another irrelevancy, as shown above.
>In the case of Navajo medicine, the AMA is in the position of being
>parapro -- OK for trivial problems but when something serious comes
>along, seek a native healer (for those who believe).
Only if you buy into the nonsense that Professional==competent/powerful.
The AMA is not "parapro" in that situation, it is simply "outside". The
question of a "professional" or even a "profession" is entirely
irrelevant (except in your own, rather colorful, imagination) in that
case.
>Licensing has nothing to do with this, especially in non-literate
>cultures that do not use diplomas to demonstrate validity.
Are you trying to paint the Navajo as a non-literate culture? That will
come as a surprise (not to mention an insult) to some Ph.D.s I know (not
to mention some highly-decorated WWII vets). It seems your views of
native American cultures are as naive as your views of the history and
nature of the Professions.
>Bill's comment that my explanation of my remarks was not what I actually
>said may be true,
...and has been demonstrated to be true...
>but I was also not considering the situation in which no one except
>parapros would be present,
...a scenario which I *explicitly* excluded, as shown above...
>largely because my definition of professionals was not as exclusive as
>his.
In other words, 'the terms mean precisely what you choose them to mean,
neither more more less. It is merely a matter of who is to be the
master.' Thank you, H. Dumpty.
>Why not accept the elaboration as the truer version of my actual held
>beliefs? It is.
Interesting...I "should" go back in time, and change my earlier post to
reflect your re-worded statement of position (which was re-worded in
response to that post). Sorry, my Time Machine is in the shop. As it is,
the primary fallacies of your first post remain, DESPITE your attempts
to redefine relevant terms to justify your statements.
And while we are at it, why are YOU apparently unwilling to reformulate
your response to dakluvsjc based on the more standard definitions of
Professional, Profession, and parapro that dakluvsjc seems to have been
using?
>There is little point to arguing about whether his interpretation of my
>earlier post was justified. Instead, let's work toward some mutual
>understanding.
There is even less point in redefining Professional to suit your
convenience and justify your response to dakluvsjc, as you have
apparently been doing. Or misrepresenting my statements and then
responding to your misrepresentations. Once again, if you have to stoop
to such dishonest games to support your point, is it worth doing?
W.E. (Bill) Goodrich, PhD
*-----------------------*--------------------------------------------*
* CHANGE YOUR SEXUALITY * http://www.nyx.net/~bgoodric/ctg.html *
* * *
* Without Aversive * bgoo...@nyx.net *
* Behavior Modification * Creative Technology Group *
* or Drugs * PO Box 286 *
* * Englewood, CO 80151-0286 *
*-----------------------*--------------------------------------------*
Nancy Alvarado
>
> You are welcome to see them as including redheads and fishmongers if
> you want, but such H. Dumpty linguistics does nothing to resolve
> matters. I use the term as it has been used for over 400 years in the
> English language, as dakluvsjc seemed to be doing.
dakluvsjc was trolling and said what he did to insult psychotherapists
(professionals) and support Brad's assertions about parapros. You seem to
have some other agenda, but it is not civil discussion. You make
interesting and effective arguments but you make them in an unpleasant
manner that takes the fun out of talking to you. I don't mind being wrong,
but I do mind being insulted.
You win, you are right, you have always been right. I admit freely that I
make up my own facts, know nothing about anything that happened outside my
own lifetime, have no ability to reason logically, and yet expect to have
my own words treated as gospel while everyone else's are trash. And I
misjudged Brad, dakluvsjc, and everyone else, including you. Hope that
admission satisfies whatever put the heat behind your last post.
I think I see someone else on the net I'd rather talk to -- bye.
Nancy
Lee Lady
In article <lakidDx...@netcom.com>, Mike Rael <la...@netcom.com> wrote:
>
> I'm pointing out that learning about Spirit Guides is not the
>same as trying to get an 8 year education in theoretical psychology!
How do you know this?
Well, yes, I agree that the one is "not the same as" the other. But
without really studying the whole concept of spirit guides, I don't see
how you can just make a flat-out assertion that this approach to
psychology represents less insight or is less effective than the
contemporary Western "theoretical" approach.
No matter how we study the world, we organize our knowledge in terms of
various mythical entities. For Freud, some of these were Ego, Id, and
Superego. For you, one of the mythical entities is "self-esteem."
(I'm sure that John M. Price can verify that detailed study of the
structure of the brain has not located any entity in it corresponding
to self-esteem.)
The fact that we use these entities to organize our knowledge does not
invalidate the insights that they represent. Even though the entities
themselves are not factually real, they may represent relationships that
are very real indeed.
However one thing that the attempt at scientific study of psychotherapy
seems to show is that the reasons psychotherapy works seem to have
little to do with the theoretical concepts we base it on.
Until you make some real investigation of the ideas underlying the
concept of Spirit Guides (which I'm sure are much less simplistic than
you assume), I don't know how you can justify your belief that they are
inferior to those taught in an eight-year program in theoretical
psychology.
--
Trying to understand learning by understanding schooling
is rather like trying to understand sexuality by studying bordellos.
-- Mary Catherine Bateson, Peripheral Visions
la...@Hawaii.Edu <http://www2.Hawaii.Edu/~lady/ >
Peter
In article <505akc$e...@news1.t1.usa.pipeline.com>,
lpa...@nyc.pipeline.com writes
>So until you read more or get a fuller picture, please don't contact me
>again. I don't wish to be rude to you, but I don't have time to spend
>defending myself against anyone and everyone who wanders in off the
>cyberstreet and doesn't understand the very long history of this one person
>terrorizing this newsgroup and tying it up in knots. It's going to stop.
>One way or the other. But it will stop.
Confirmed, unconditionally, positively, and with due regard.
--
Peter
In article <4q802v$d...@stratus.skypoint.net>, Cognito2 <Cogn...@aol.com> writes
>One of you assholes let me know how it turns out