reply to sock Valens Re: APA lists treat Dr. Ehrenfels badly (was: APA lists treat Dr. Ehrenfels badly)

On 22 Oct 2003 10:48:56 -0700, Michael Valens wrote:

Top paosters suck. That said...
 
>      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.
> 

Then you should start at the beginning, back to the middle 90's and go from
there. Reading websites regarding its history will give you a fast read
which can all be vindicated when following BJ and its history.

I feel that you will learn why it is despised and hated. You will find some
that felt it had some seeds of ideas which it was admonished to follow up
and elaborate on, yet it never did. You will also find that all eventually
separated themselves from it due to its behaviors.
 
>      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.
>

LMAO, if it was so dismayed with DSM then why did it align itself with it
by creating a crummy flawed script, then touting it as the do all end all
of free DSM surveys. It hates yet aligns itself with main stream Psychology
with little side trips in ethology. It also presented itself, fraudulently,
as a Psychologist and counselor until it was stopped by the State of Mn.

As yourself it on occasion presented itself as a Dr without supporting
credentials or papers. While there is a certain forensic difference between
yourself and BJ there are also some great psychological similarities.

The control the wives have over each of you is hilarious.

>      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).
>

So you bought into that too? LOL! LMAO! You are sooooooo perceptive and
equally disturbed by the boogie man. tinc. *snicker*
 
>      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.
>

Yes, you are correct in that you have or could be tracked down. Footprints
are everywhere, but this socalled pen name crap is just pretentious
behavior. You are a sock puppet, you use socks, you try to hide, disguise
yourself, and even speak of a book that you are self publishing, a novel,
yet you proclaim it as a *truth* LOL, you can't have it both ways. A two
volume novel? *snicker* what a whiney person. So you write a book based on
your luser lyfe, making excuses for why you didn't make it in the field of
psychology and then use that as a basis for your "new thought" and why it
is so valuable. Seems all wannabe Ph.D.'s that flunked out, as is the case
with BJ seem to have come up with their new conventions, yet draw of works
of others to support their ideas.

Now you want to force yourself upon the community and are filled with your
own import.

Then do a little research and write papers (published of course) then
combine it all into a book that would be the culimination of your *cough*
"new thought" Don't try an perpetrate your ideas on newbie's and the
unsuspecting. All I see is maybe some gullible people falling into your
little private cesspool, believing that you have a doctorate in the field
when you don't. I know there are a lot of gullible people out there and one
of the greatest recognizers of that had a tremendous circus, but you do a
disservice to yourself and others if what you have has merit.

>      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.
> 

Oh my, poor me, oh what am I gonna do? everybody hates me, nobody likes me.

Well then.....go eat some worms. (Sorry, BJ's is already gone.)

>      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.
>

Sorry bubba, you are deluded. You must fit into normal conventions, the
realm of normality. Wise people do not give in to temper tantrums, or the
foot stomping of little spoiled brats. Many totally insane people had great
ideas, some with merit, only a fool would attempt to participate.
 
>      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.
> 

Sorry, you lie, just like BJ. I saw many of your poasts, most not replied
to, yes! Simply ignored. Once or twice someone posted with a disagreement.
No discourse followed.

You may be hosting froups on Yahoo, and some may be buying in, but you as
BJ greatly exaggerate your numbers. Yep, BS stats. adds real credence to
your over inflated ego.

> thanks,
>
get a job.
 
> J. Wyatt Ehrenfels

--
Iceman Ph.D.