Re: APA lists treat Dr. Ehrenfels badly

I'd like to thank you for your healthy balance of open-mindedness and
skepticism. I appreciate blind faith about as much as I appreciate
knee-jerk dismissal. Both make me uncomfortable.

     I am not wholly familiar with the history of Brad's relationship
with these news groups. Not yet at least. I am working my way through
some of the exchanges, but I must admit to feeling just a little
"dirty" after reading some of this stuff. It's the same feeling I have
before washing my hands in a public restroom.

     I reached out to Brad a couple months ago because I saw some
rather compelling flashes in the case he laid out against the field's
reliance on the DSM. Contrary to what some people think (i.e., that he
and I are the same person or two people with the same view), Brad and
I are actually working the same case from opposite ends and so I
contacted him one day to request that we "talk shop." Those talks
culminated in a synopsis I composed of his views on my web site.

     I am dismayed by what I am hearing from Brad and others about the
censorship of my posts. I do not visit these groups often. I am
usually preoccupied with APA association listservs, my own two Yahoo
Groups, and college e-mail directories (reaching out to psychology
majors with tips on negotiating the hidden odds & obstacles to
graduate admission).

     It is a simple matter, a stop-gap solution to the problem of J
Wyatt Ehrenfels, to exploit my nom de plum and as-yet unreleased book
as a trust issue. But my pen name was required to secure the support
of the most significant people on my campaign, and once my book is
released and I go through mainstream book publicity channels, I will
recoup any ground I may have lost due to the assumed name. Not that I
have lost much. My web logs record hundreds of visits and thousands of
accesses a day on average (Sunday is always a bad day). And those
disposed to listen understand that my reasons for assuming a pen name
are rooted in my criticisms of the field. (I adopted the name after
repeated overtures from a spouse and other supporters fearing
reprisals. A subsequent threat of litigation from a university, and
behavior not unlike that observable on the psychotherapy news groups,
vindicated their fears). I am real, but if I list my affiliations, I
give ammunition to those universities for lawsuits, I risk the release
of my book, and I send in motion a chain of communique that will flood
my inbox with e-mail from old professors. I should just let a
competent journalist dig all this truth up one day. Neither I nor my
prior affiliations are impossible to track down.

     Among the tactics used to encourage others to discredit me is the
practice of persuading others that all these critics of psychology are
really proxies for one disgruntled person seeking to avenge a
collection of bad experiences. I have to admit that when someone
speaks on my behalf on a listserv, he or she runs the risk of being
treated as my alias. It is then a simple matter to discount 3
critiques as 1 critique and this 1 critique is then questionable on
grounds of trust alone (impersonation). Meanwhile listserv
participants are working backchannel to petition the moderators to
have me or a supporter unsubscribed or filtered. In cases where
moderators acquiesce or pander to such tactics, I am not above
re-subscribing under an alias (as I am doing now as Michael Valens
having received word that I am being censored). While I may have an
active day every so often on a listserv, I am usually an observor and
seldom post.

     As for being disgruntled, yes, I cannot deny the experiences
which motivated me to compose and express my critique and to do with
my trademark rhetorical pitch. However, to attempt to disqualify a
complaint based on a motive would pretty much be tantamount to
dismissing every legal case that went to court. Even if I admitted to
being angry, my anger cannot account for the logic of my argument, and
if you want to defuse my viewpoint, you will have to address my
argument on logical grounds. There is no end-run around that.

     I do welcome disagreement. It helps me to frame the issues
better. It helps me often to find a more efficient voice with which to
express my point of view. Disagreement has been a major contributor to
the quality of my arguments, helping to shape them even more support.

thanks,

J. Wyatt Ehrenfels




Kali <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 
> posted Sat, 04 Oct 2003 01:57:00 GMT, Nemesis says...
> 
> :On Sat, 04 Oct 2003 01:42:16 GMT, Kali wrote:
> :
> :> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 
> :> posted Sat, 04 Oct 2003 00:24:48 GMT, Nemesis says...
> :> 
> :>:On Fri,  3 Oct 2003 22:50:37 +0200 (CEST), Anonymous via the Cypherpunks
> :>:Tonga Remailer wrote:
> :>:
> :>:> Dr. Ehrenfels has reportedly been kicked off of APA mailing lists just
> :>:> for his views (see http://www.fireflySun.com/16pointspage.html)  and
> :>:> for NO VALID readon.
> :> 
> :> Unlike bradless, who has been kicked off lists for 
> :> perfectly understandable reasons: being obnoxious and 
> :> posting repeated screed and defamation. 
> :> 
> :>:> The lies and corruption in the psychotherapy field continue.
> :>:> 
> :>:> Open lists are censored and are a fraud.  A full-fledged FRAUD as is the
> :>:> field itself
> :>:
> :>:He does not have the training nor credentials to be on such a list.
> :> 
> :> Dr. E.? Why not? 
> :> 
> :
> :Read his bio, he has no real name, no real degree's, no real education.
> 
> He does have a Ph.D. in Social Psychology. 
> 
> :His complaints are the same as Bradley's, and his reasoning validated only
> :by kook's. His 'wife', who may or may not be real has no name and
> :supposedly degree's in the disciplines that he attacks.
> :
> :He says that it is the other people who do the dirty deeds not him.
> :
> :Sound familiar?
> 
> Yes, but there is a qualitative difference. I suppose he is  
> disgruntled. But his points aren't as far out as you might 
> think. 
> 
> There are politics in graduate programs. I've heard some 
> horror stories, and I've witnessed a couple first hand. His 
> story is one of having views that don't fit well in 
> academia. Dr. E. can actually carry on a decent and even 
> enlightening conversation, and can tolerate disagreement. I 
> have disagreed with him and challenged his assumptions and 
> he was quite civil, even thoughtful and helpful. Never 
> disrespectful. brad is just an asshole. 
> 
> brad and Dr. E. are not the same. 
> 
> [...]
> 
> Kali
> -- 
> "As we were rehearsing, I saw this toilet bowl," says 
> Schwarzenegger, an impish smile crossing his face. "How 
> many times do you get away with this--to take a woman, grab 
> her upside down, and bury her face in a toilet bowl? I 
> wanted to have something floating in there," he adds. 
> Apparently, he was vetoed. "They thought it was my typical 
> Schwarzenegger overboard," he says. "The thing is, you can 
> do it, because in the end, I didn't do it to a woman--she's 
> a machine! We could get away with it without being 
> crucified by who-knows-what group." (Note to California's 
> Democratic strategists: The soccer-mom set is now yours for 
> the taking!)