|
|
|
prejudice psychology Witness dropped with prejudice
|
|
|
In article <X_2f5.7097$
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
_link_.net, Pogo Possum, Ph.D. <pogos...@earth_link_.net writes: Please post the e-mail address of the regulatory agency so that interested others can contact them and inquire about what is really going on. There is no official email address for DORA or for the MHGB (Mental Health Grievance Board). The web site for DORA is:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access. |
|
|
|
prejudice psychology Witness dropped with prejudice
|
|
|
<snip The Order is available on request from the MHGB, in its ORIGINAL form (without any WBW edits). Does anyone else find it rather pathetic that the WBW keeps trying to lie about messages and documents which can easily be checked? At least he now admits that he lied about the hearing. While I agree with you that there's a (significant) difference between saying that someone can't hold themself out to be a PhD and saying that someone cannot use that _title_ in [particular situations], and I see that Gene has already acknowledged his error on his phrasing/statement, ...And then turned right around and REPEATED that error , with the claim but he can't put that in print (which he is doing at this moment.) ... I saw no admission by Gene concerning any hearing. Compare the statement about why the hearing dod NOT take place with his earlier statements that it WILL take place, WAS taking place, and HAD taken place. His admission that it didn't - even with his persistent mischaracterizations of the hearing itself - constitutes an admission that his earlier statements were false. Nor did I see any evidence supporting your version about the purpose of any hearing on the dates in question. To the contrary, the sequence of events is more consistent with what Gene has claimed, as it might appear that you signed the stipulation and order right before any hearing was to commence. It can seem that way, given the rather selective claims. But there are significant facts which he has chosen to misrepresent. For instance, the hearing I requested was to take place last February (as mentioned in the Order)- not in July as he claimed . The negotiations were suspended pending resolution of my complaint against the investigator (which was the subject of the July 19/20 hearing). That matter was resolved, and the other finalized. The sequence of events AS PRESENTED BY GENE is false and misleading. As I mentioned before, the prohibition on PRINT advertising (and its close internet equivalent) is nothing more than a restatement of existing policy regarding nonclinical degrees - and my agreement to continue respecting that policy. On the other hand, the second sentence EXPLICITLY allows me to use my degree here, No, it doesn't explicitly allow you to do that. I saw no reference in the stipulation and order to usenet posts. The de_script_or communications, correspondence was specifically intended to include - but not be limited to - usenet posts. The next part - or other actions which are not print or internet advertising - was what expanded the exception to non-print advertising as well as non-advertising print (and its internet equivalent). It is relevant to note here that the Board uses a very narrow definition of advertising. It is also relevant to note that I have used exactly ONE print advertisement (by the Board's definition) in the last 10 years, and that was a fairly general listing in a Wellness Guide that a friend of mine was publishing (purchased as a favor to that friend). You have not presented anything from the Board that explicitly authorizes you to use the PhD in a usenet post when the sigblock that immediately follows the post contains advertising for your professional psychotherapy-oriented practice and/or web site. On the contrary, the second sentence does EXACTLY that (among other things). It is relevant to note here that the Board does not consider the .sig block to be internet advertising unless it is appended to a message body which IN ITSELF constitutes internet advertising . In their view, the .sig block is no different than having the same information on my letterhead. It is also relevant to note that Karen Frazzini repeatedly and at great length explained these things to Mr. Douglas, and he has declined to share that information here. I think that the public would be led to believe that the PhD was connected to psychotherapy and/or the services you offer professionally, and if the PhD isn't connected to either psychotherapy and/or services offered, then I think its use is misleading. Indeed, I think you *have* been misleading everyone here for the past few years. Given the WBW's claims, and the temporary lack of access to the archives, such an opinion is not entirely surprising. I seem to recall at least one post of yours where you hinted (?) that you did have a dissertation in psychology that had been somewhat classified or sensitive. Unfortunately, your memory may be somewhat clouded by Mr. Douglas' rather colorful paraphrases . Since posts prior to May 1999 are not currently available via Deja.com, I cannot retrieve the post to refresh my memory, but perhaps you will recall the post or posts, and repost them. The archive should be up before too much longer. In your most recent explanation, you now use the word non-clinical, which might include a degree in experimental psychology or some other field of psychology, but might refer to a degree in a wholly unrelated field. We have discussed the fact that my degree in Psychology is not in CLINICAL psychology several times, such as in the Brad-inspired discussion of the _title_ Psychologist . Here again , the archives would be helpful. So answer a straight question, Bill: Do you or don't you have a doctoral degree in any recognized field of psychology
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access. |
|
|
|
prejudice psychology Witness dropped with prejudice
|
|
|
W.E.(Bill) Goodrich, PhD <
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
wrote in message <snip Nothing will change (other than my ISP, perhaps). I am still who I was, and I still sign my posts with my honest name. Unlike Edgar Eugene. He thinks he's discovered a big secret, because he's found out my first name. Actually, it has to do with what my parents called me as a child, my father's and grandfather's names. Not interesting, really. Nor did you attempt to hide it. You are listed that way (with the Edgar Eugene ) in your local directories, and when you wrote to me at my office (back in 1997 when you wondered whether I was really me), your return envelope had your name and address. His less-than-honest names were not related to his use of his use of a form of his middle name. They were his sock-puppet postings, like Xavier Onassis and the infamous WCX mystery man. The use of his first and middle name was simply a gesture of disrespect. My use of Xavier Onassis (say it real fast) was to protect Mr. G.'s identity, from anyone but those who already knew the story, which was explained at the time. He had just done a well-expressed piece on the subject where Nancy was concerned, but in that case he could just say sock puppet. Where WCX was concerned, that was created by BG himself. He has admitted that he belongs to the source site, which costs $500 to join. I had hunted for it when the incident happened, and accidentally found it, but could not get to the e-mail section because I was having computer problems at the time. I decided I was probably at the wrong place anyway, because it looked like a store. - Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access. |
|
|
|
prejudice psychology Witness dropped with prejudice
|
|
|
Deja.com, I cannot retrieve the post to refresh my memory, but perhaps you will recall the post or posts, and repost them. The archive should be up before too much longer. In your most recent explanation, you now use the word non-clinical, which might include a degree in experimental psychology or some other field of psychology, but might refer to a degree in a wholly unrelated field. We have discussed the fact that my degree in Psychology is not in CLINICAL psychology several times, such as in the Brad-inspired discussion of the _title_ Psychologist . Here again , the archives would be helpful. So answer a straight question, Bill: Do you or don't you have a doctoral degree in any recognized field of psychology
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access. |
|
|
|
prejudice psychology Witness dropped with prejudice
|
|
Once again, my newsreader is out of whack. I have a couple of posts in my outbox, and it will probably send them later. Deja is running faster this evening than it did at noon, and is no longer a day behind. My replies to Bill's nonsense will come along eventually, and I don't want to write them here all over again. Gene Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access. |
|
|
|
prejudice psychology Witness dropped with prejudice
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access. |
|
Favoured: 0
