Re: Urgent Education Advocacy Alert for Parents in New York State

[Raving Loonie]

Caitriona Mac Fhiodhbhuidhe wrote:
> Raving Loonie wrote:
> > Caitriona Mac Fhiodhbhuidhe wrote:
> > > Raving Loonie wrote:
> > > <snipped>
> > > > IOW, please excuse the skulduggery.
> > > >
> > > > Your message is all 'posture'. Theatre....
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > P.K.B.
> > bull****.
>
>
> What would you call *your* typical posts, if not posturing and theatre?
>
> The lady who initiated this thread is a legit person who simply doesn't
> wish to have herself archived, quite possibly due to the abusers who
> frequent Usenet. It's not at all unusual. Many people utilize
> x-no-archive in an effort to minimize problems with abusers.
>
> Kitten


In my mirror (http://tinyurl.com/hlskv) Leslie E. Packer, PhD wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 10:57:35 -0400, "GFX" > wrote:
>
> >These are, as you have outlined well, highly unacceptable scenarios. I have
> >some sense of New York people (Regents Board or not..) and think it highly
> >unlikely that this would happen 'very many times' before it did reach a
> >higher level of authority. While New Yorkers will take an awful lot
> >'sitting down' - I don't think you're going to mess with their kids too much
> >before it could get quite nasty.
>
> Unfortunately, that's not been my experience as a pro bono advocate,
> as a parent, and as a mental health professional, which is why I and
> some others who have similar backgrounds and experiences dealing with
> advocacy issues are working feverishly to get these regulations
> withdrawn.
> >
> >I will also refer this matter to some people who are rather influential in
> >that state, and just sort of run it 'across their mental desk'. I suspect
> >that you nor I will need to worry a whole lot more about this. I lived for
> >20 years in the capital of New York, and will make it my business to see
> >that this gets full light shed upon it.
>
> If you know people who can be influential, please feel free to email
> me, Gary. Just delete the _nospam from the email address. I'd be
> happy to provide you with documents, materials, and to give you my
> contact details so that you can share them with anyone in Albany who
> wants to discuss this further.
> >
> >You are also correct about the restraint issue, and I will make that known
> >as well. I have found that this particular issue *really* gets under
> >people's skin, probably because they find the idea of actually *being*
> >restrained terribly aversive. I personally feel (and think that the law
> >pretty much agrees) that any non-monitored (physician level) restraint is
> >medically unsafe - it's pretty hard to argue it really. The physical and
> >mental safety of children (and all people for that matter) must come first
> >in any sort of custodial environment, even if it one which lasts only 7
> >hours a day.
>
> Well, there are research-validated methods of restraint, like SCIP-R,
> but yes, I agree with you about the need for medical/safety
> monitoring. Also, the new regulations don't require school personnel
> to get trained and certified in SCIP-R. They just leave it up to each
> district to decide which kind of training and how much to provide.
> The regs also don't require school personnel to get adequate training
> and certification in crisis de-escalation so that they could actually
> prevent problems.
>
> >Gary
>
> A copy of an action alert on this is now up at Wrightslaw if you want
> to point people to it:
> http://www.wrightslaw.com/news/06/abuse.nys.regs.htm
>
> Thanks so much for your interest and willingness to help.
>
> And back to work for me....
>
> Leslie
>
> <snip of previous post>

[ Quoting her, from therein ] ....

Unfortunately, that's not been my experience as a pro bono advocate, as
a parent, and as a mental health professional, which is why I and some
others who have similar backgrounds and experiences dealing with
advocacy issues are working feverishly to get these regulations
withdrawn.
....

If you know people who can be influential, please feel free to email
me, Gary. Just delete the _nospam from the email address. I'd be
happy to provide you with documents, materials, and to give you my
contact details so that you can share them with anyone in Albany who
wants to discuss this further.

... [End quoting]

Whatever "Leslie E. Packer, PhD" may or may not believe in any personal
sense; she is *likely* making these postings with a view to fiscal
renumeration for her efforts.

This is called spamming, posturing, theatre, lobbying .. whatever.

To her credit, "Leslie E. Packer, PhD" openly declares her vested
interest in this regard notwithstanding, her penchent for
'X-No-Archive'.

How many other Usenet 'lobbyists' are so forthcoming with disclosure of
their vested interests?

Cordially,

RL

[Distribution changed from
alt.support.ocd,alt.support.attn-deficit,alt.support.dev-delays to ~~~>
misc.health.alternative, alt.support.attn-deficit, misc.kids.health,
sci.med, talk.politics.medicine]

[Marcia]

Raving Loonie wrote:
> Caitriona Mac Fhiodhbhuidhe wrote:
> > Raving Loonie wrote:
> > > Caitriona Mac Fhiodhbhuidhe wrote:
> > > > Raving Loonie wrote:
> > > > <snipped>
> > > > > IOW, please excuse the skulduggery.
> > > > >
> > > > > Your message is all 'posture'. Theatre....
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > P.K.B.
> > > bull****.
> >
> >
> > What would you call *your* typical posts, if not posturing and theatre?
> >
> > The lady who initiated this thread is a legit person who simply doesn't
> > wish to have herself archived, quite possibly due to the abusers who
> > frequent Usenet. It's not at all unusual. Many people utilize
> > x-no-archive in an effort to minimize problems with abusers.
> >
> > Kitten
>
>
> In my mirror (http://tinyurl.com/hlskv) Leslie E. Packer, PhD wrote:
> > On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 10:57:35 -0400, "GFX" > wrote:
> >
> > >These are, as you have outlined well, highly unacceptable scenarios. I have
> > >some sense of New York people (Regents Board or not..) and think it highly
> > >unlikely that this would happen 'very many times' before it did reach a
> > >higher level of authority. While New Yorkers will take an awful lot
> > >'sitting down' - I don't think you're going to mess with their kids too much
> > >before it could get quite nasty.
> >
> > Unfortunately, that's not been my experience as a pro bono advocate,
> > as a parent, and as a mental health professional, which is why I and
> > some others who have similar backgrounds and experiences dealing with
> > advocacy issues are working feverishly to get these regulations
> > withdrawn.
> > >
> > >I will also refer this matter to some people who are rather influential in
> > >that state, and just sort of run it 'across their mental desk'. I suspect
> > >that you nor I will need to worry a whole lot more about this. I lived for
> > >20 years in the capital of New York, and will make it my business to see
> > >that this gets full light shed upon it.
> >
> > If you know people who can be influential, please feel free to email
> > me, Gary. Just delete the _nospam from the email address. I'd be
> > happy to provide you with documents, materials, and to give you my
> > contact details so that you can share them with anyone in Albany who
> > wants to discuss this further.
> > >
> > >You are also correct about the restraint issue, and I will make that known
> > >as well. I have found that this particular issue *really* gets under
> > >people's skin, probably because they find the idea of actually *being*
> > >restrained terribly aversive. I personally feel (and think that the law
> > >pretty much agrees) that any non-monitored (physician level) restraint is
> > >medically unsafe - it's pretty hard to argue it really. The physical and
> > >mental safety of children (and all people for that matter) must come first
> > >in any sort of custodial environment, even if it one which lasts only 7
> > >hours a day.
> >
> > Well, there are research-validated methods of restraint, like SCIP-R,
> > but yes, I agree with you about the need for medical/safety
> > monitoring. Also, the new regulations don't require school personnel
> > to get trained and certified in SCIP-R. They just leave it up to each
> > district to decide which kind of training and how much to provide.
> > The regs also don't require school personnel to get adequate training
> > and certification in crisis de-escalation so that they could actually
> > prevent problems.
> >
> > >Gary
> >
> > A copy of an action alert on this is now up at Wrightslaw if you want
> > to point people to it:
> > http://www.wrightslaw.com/news/06/abuse.nys.regs.htm
> >
> > Thanks so much for your interest and willingness to help.
> >
> > And back to work for me....
> >
> > Leslie
> >
> > <snip of previous post>
>
> [ Quoting her, from therein ] ....
>
> Unfortunately, that's not been my experience as a pro bono advocate, as
> a parent, and as a mental health professional, which is why I and some
> others who have similar backgrounds and experiences dealing with
> advocacy issues are working feverishly to get these regulations
> withdrawn.
> ....
>
> If you know people who can be influential, please feel free to email
> me, Gary. Just delete the _nospam from the email address. I'd be
> happy to provide you with documents, materials, and to give you my
> contact details so that you can share them with anyone in Albany who
> wants to discuss this further.
>
> ... [End quoting]
>
> Whatever "Leslie E. Packer, PhD" may or may not believe in any personal
> sense; she is *likely* making these postings with a view to fiscal
> renumeration for her efforts.
>
> This is called spamming, posturing, theatre, lobbying .. whatever.
>
> To her credit, "Leslie E. Packer, PhD" openly declares her vested
> interest in this regard notwithstanding, her penchent for
> 'X-No-Archive'.
>
> How many other Usenet 'lobbyists' are so forthcoming with disclosure of
> their vested interests?
>
> Cordially,
>
> RL
>
> [Distribution changed from
> alt.support.ocd,alt.support.attn-deficit,alt.support.dev-delays to ~~~>
> misc.health.alternative, alt.support.attn-deficit, misc.kids.health,
> sci.med, talk.politics.medicine]


Ugh. RL, I'm amazed that you still believe this. Some of us here know
Leslie Packer or are familiar with her work, and have been for a LONG
TIME. Remember, you've been told this before.

I promise you she is NOT posting or getting involved for personal gain.
She cares deeply about the treatment of disabled kids, is an expert on
Tourette, and is one of the truly decent people in the mental health
field.

It really pains me to see you write nasty messages about someone so
warm and kind. I hope you'll stop now.

marcia

[Raving Loonie]

Marcia wrote:
> Raving Loonie wrote:
> > [ Quoting her, from therein (http://tinyurl.com/hlskv) ] ....
> >
> > Unfortunately, that's not been my experience as a pro bono advocate, as
> > a parent, and as a mental health professional, which is why I and some
> > others who have similar backgrounds and experiences dealing with
> > advocacy issues are working feverishly to get these regulations
> > withdrawn.
> > ....
> >
> > If you know people who can be influential, please feel free to email
> > me, Gary. Just delete the _nospam from the email address. I'd be
> > happy to provide you with documents, materials, and to give you my
> > contact details so that you can share them with anyone in Albany who
> > wants to discuss this further.
> >
> > ... [End quoting]
> >
> > Whatever "Leslie E. Packer, PhD" may or may not believe in any personal
> > sense; she is *likely* making these postings with a view to fiscal
> > renumeration for her efforts.
> >
> > This is called spamming, posturing, theatre, lobbying .. whatever.
> >
> > To her credit, "Leslie E. Packer, PhD" openly declares her vested
> > interest in this regard notwithstanding, her penchent for
> > 'X-No-Archive'.
> >
> > How many other Usenet 'lobbyists' are so forthcoming with disclosure of
> > their vested interests?
> >
> > Cordially,
> >
> > RL
> >
> > [Distribution changed from
> > alt.support.ocd,alt.support.attn-deficit,alt.support.dev-delays to ~~~>
> > misc.health.alternative, alt.support.attn-deficit, misc.kids.health,
> > sci.med, talk.politics.medicine]
>
>
> Ugh. RL, I'm amazed that you still believe this. Some of us here know
> Leslie Packer or are familiar with her work, and have been for a LONG
> TIME. Remember, you've been told this before.
These are her words; not mine; posted within the last handful of days
....

" ... Unfortunately, that's not been my experience as a pro bono
advocate, as a parent, and as a mental health professional, which is
why I ..."

What is there to believe or not believe, here?

Yes, you are correct; if you mean to point that she is *not actually*
lobbying/researching in a pro bono sense, at this stage in her life.
That is indeterminate for me given the contextual information which is
provided.

> I promise you she is NOT posting or getting involved for personal gain.
> She cares deeply about the treatment of disabled kids, is an expert on
> Tourette, and is one of the truly decent people in the mental health
> field.
What does that have to do with the price of eggs in China?


>
> It really pains me to see you write nasty messages about someone so
> warm and kind. I hope you'll stop now.
>
> marcia
What is nasty about my message? ... I am lauding "Leslie E. Packer,
PhD" for having the gumption to openly declare that she has/does
done/do 'pro bono' work in the past/present. It is an honest living;
all the more so, if one makes no bones about it, eh.

Throughout her postings that I have read; one thing seems very coherent
and intense ...

She is very, very, very deliberate in what she does.

Is this a bad thing, too?

Cordially,

RL

[Raving Loonie]

Marcia wrote:
> Raving Loonie wrote:
> > Marcia wrote:
> > > Ugh. RL, I'm amazed that you still believe this. Some of us here know
> > > Leslie Packer or are familiar with her work, and have been for a LONG
> > > TIME. Remember, you've been told this before.
> > These are her words; not mine; posted within the last handful of days
> > ...
> >
> > " ... Unfortunately, that's not been my experience as a pro bono
> > advocate, as a parent, and as a mental health professional, which is
> > why I ..."
> >
> > What is there to believe or not believe, here?
> >
> > Yes, you are correct; if you mean to point that she is *not actually*
> > lobbying/researching in a pro bono sense, at this stage in her life.
> > That is indeterminate for me given the contextual information which is
> > provided.
>
> The information she provided is RELEVANT to the groups she posted in.
> It's something people in NY state who have children affected by these
> disorders would want to know. It's important for people *outside* NY
> state to see what's happening because it may represent a trend. The
> fact that it doesn't apply to you *personally* doesn't make it SPAM.
>
> There is nothing wrong with lobbying against human rights violations.
> In fact, it's morally sound. How can you *object* to that????
>
> >
> > > I promise you she is NOT posting or getting involved for personal gain.
> > > She cares deeply about the treatment of disabled kids, is an expert on
> > > Tourette, and is one of the truly decent people in the mental health
> > > field.
> > What does that have to do with the price of eggs in China?
>
>
> What it has to do with the price of eggs in China is that *you* stated:
>
> > > > Whatever "Leslie E. Packer, PhD" may or may not believe in any personal
> > > > sense; she is *likely* making these postings with a view to fiscal
> > > > renumeration for her efforts.
>
> You do realize that pro bono means she is working *without*
> compensation. She is providing services for FREE because she believes
> in the cause. She is NOT looking for fiscal remuneration. That's the
> concept of pro bono. It's a charitable contribution.
pro bono

adj : done for the public good without compensation

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=pro+bono&db=*

[snip]

> > Throughout her postings that I have read; one thing seems very coherent
> > and intense ...
> >
> > She is very, very, very deliberate in what she does.
> >
> > Is this a bad thing, too?
I shall explain something about myself, agressively ...

"Leslie Packer is VERY, VERY, VERY DELIBERATE in what she does."

>From my own perspective; given the preferred manner by which I myself
*think*; my own observation in this regard, says it all. Leslie Packer
is VERY, VERY, VERY DELIBERATE in what she does.

Meaning .... I cease looking further and rest confidently on what I
have already discerned.

Moreover, in whatever, Leslie E. Packer, PhD wrote:
> On 18 Jul 2006 07:31:19 -0700, "Marcia" >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >Caitriona Mac Fhiodhbhuidhe wrote:
> >> Raving Loonie wrote:
> >> <snipped>
> >> > Did you earn your PhD from the back of a cereal box?
> >> >
> >> > The x-no-archive makes a mockery of your message.
> >> >
> >> > ... IMO.
> >>
> >>
> >> Or, perhaps she doesn't want to be abused in the way many of us here
> >> have been? If you were in her position, would you want to have such
> >> lies about you posted all over Usenet, for anyone to find in a simple
> >> 'net search?
> >>
> >> Kitten
> >
> >
> >I agree. It's not clear to me how anyone can read anything more than
> >straightforward information in her post--nothing to be ashamed of or
> >hide, nothing out of line--unless my reading comprehension has dropped
> >signficantly in the past 48 hours.
> >
> >I think we've all seen how people can distort the truth and use it to
> >promote malicious agendas, so the x-no-archive decision makes a lot of
> >sense to me.
> >
> >Besides, why would anyone need this archived? At some point the article
> >will be out-of-date, or will be replaced by more current information.
> >
> >marcia
> >LSFC
>
> You and Kitten are both quite correct in your hypotheses, but I won't
> discuss why publicly. Thank you both for giving me the benefit of any
> doubt.
>
> If anyone has any additional questions on the regulatory issue, they
> are welcome to email me. There is also an action alert up at
> Wrightslaw now: http://www.wrightslaw.com/news/06/abuse.nys.regs.htm
>
> If there are further updates on the issue, I'll post again.
>
> Leslie

Explicitly highlighting, therefrom ...

" ...You and Kitten are both quite correct in your hypotheses, but I
won't discuss why publicly. Thank you both for giving me the benefit
of any doubt. ..."

These words reinforce <to me> that to which, I have already asserted
....

"Leslie Packer is VERY, VERY, VERY DELIBERATE in what she does."

[snip]

> I would hope she's deliberate and organized. She has a specific goal
> she's trying to achieve. You keep posting messages that read as
> criticism; then, when you're called on it, you claim you're not
> criticizing her. You refuse to acknowledge and take responsibility for
> what you've written.
I do not consider my message to be a criticism. Yes, my understanding
of the term 'pro bono' was faulty. That *might* be important ... I am
suggesting that it is neither here nor there as it resides outside the
focus of what I perceive.

My observation begins and ends with ....

"Leslie Packer is VERY, VERY, VERY DELIBERATE in what she does."


> Imo, you have a lot of anger right now, ...
Yes, I certainly do.

Notwithstanding such, I do not view Packer badly or with disfavor. I am
perplexed and bemused with my apparent failure at reasonably conveying
a facsimile of what I perceive. That being ....

"Leslie Packer is VERY, VERY, VERY DELIBERATE in what she does."

If she doesn't get paid for doing this sort of thing; it's a pity. IMO,
she is very, very good at it.

Am I criticizing her?

Let's look at those who earn money for being persuasive ...

* Salesperson
* Lawyers
* Advertisers
* Entertainers
* Teachers
....
* Politicians
* Paid lobbyists
* 'Not for profit' charitable fund raisers

( continuing ...

> ... and you're pointing it in
> inappropriate directions. Maybe that feels safer than expressing it to
> the person or people you're really angry with, but, as a consequence,
> you're being unfair to someone who doesn't deserve it.
... continued )

Could Packer be a social worker?

A curious profession.

It seems that they get paid for advocating for the public good.
( .. or someones good ... or something like that? )

Is it a criticism to call someone a social worker?


> I'm angry with you for your behavior in this thread. You can be angry
> with me for jumping on you, if you want. I still like you, though.
>
> marcia
I am merely pointing out that "Leslie E. Packer, PhD" is a f*cking good
advocate. Moreover, there is nothing which is inherently untoward about
being 'such', regardless of whether the person is passionate or
disinterested in what they are advocating; aside from considerations of
whether or not they are renumerated for their efforts.

IMO, that is not an insult. I hope that might be able to accept my
observation in that light.

Cordially,

RL

[Marcia]

Raving Loonie wrote:

<giant snip>

> I am merely pointing out that "Leslie E. Packer, PhD" is a f*cking good
> advocate. Moreover, there is nothing which is inherently untoward about
> being 'such', regardless of whether the person is passionate or
> disinterested in what they are advocating; aside from considerations of
> whether or not they are renumerated for their efforts.
>
> IMO, that is not an insult. I hope that might be able to accept my
> observation in that light.
>
> Cordially,
>
> RL

RL, this is the first time you've expressed your thoughts clearly in
this thread. The idea behind communication is that you need to phrase
your ideas in a way that *other* people can comprehend (because we have
limitations, too); otherwise, you've failed to communicate, and have
just spilled words on a page (or screen). Most of us need some
directions and road signs in order to get where the writer is going. ;)

I know what you write makes perfect sense to you, and sometime I get
what you're saying (or at least the feeling behind it), but more often
not. That's a shame. You have good insight and valuable ideas to share,
but I'm afraid you run the risk of being misunderstood unless you
organize your thoughts in a way the rest of us can follow.

I agree, Leslie's an *excellent* advocate for disability rights, and
anyone who's touched by her contribution is fortunate, indeed. She's a
psychologist, btw, not a social worker.

Thank you for clarifying your message.

marcia

[Jan Drew]

Excellent.

"Raving Beauty" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Raving Loonie wrote:
>> Marcia wrote:
>> > Raving Loonie wrote:
>> > > Marcia wrote:
>> > > > Ugh. RL, I'm amazed that you still believe this. Some of us here
>> > > > know
>> > > > Leslie Packer or are familiar with her work, and have been for a
>> > > > LONG
>> > > > TIME. Remember, you've been told this before.
>> > > These are her words; not mine; posted within the last handful of days
>> > > ...
>> > >
>> > > " ... Unfortunately, that's not been my experience as a pro bono
>> > > advocate, as a parent, and as a mental health professional, which is
>> > > why I ..."
>> > >
>> > > What is there to believe or not believe, here?
>> > >
>> > > Yes, you are correct; if you mean to point that she is *not actually*
>> > > lobbying/researching in a pro bono sense, at this stage in her life.
>> > > That is indeterminate for me given the contextual information which
>> > > is
>> > > provided.
>> >
>> > The information she provided is RELEVANT to the groups she posted in.
>> > It's something people in NY state who have children affected by these
>> > disorders would want to know. It's important for people *outside* NY
>> > state to see what's happening because it may represent a trend. The
>> > fact that it doesn't apply to you *personally* doesn't make it SPAM.
>> >
>> > There is nothing wrong with lobbying against human rights violations.
>> > In fact, it's morally sound. How can you *object* to that????
>> >
>> > >
>> > > > I promise you she is NOT posting or getting involved for personal
>> > > > gain.
>> > > > She cares deeply about the treatment of disabled kids, is an expert
>> > > > on
>> > > > Tourette, and is one of the truly decent people in the mental
>> > > > health
>> > > > field.
>> > > What does that have to do with the price of eggs in China?
>> >
>> >
>> > What it has to do with the price of eggs in China is that *you* stated:
>> >
>> > > > > Whatever "Leslie E. Packer, PhD" may or may not believe in any
>> > > > > personal
>> > > > > sense; she is *likely* making these postings with a view to
>> > > > > fiscal
>> > > > > renumeration for her efforts.
>> >
>> > You do realize that pro bono means she is working *without*
>> > compensation. She is providing services for FREE because she believes
>> > in the cause. She is NOT looking for fiscal remuneration. That's the
>> > concept of pro bono. It's a charitable contribution.
>> pro bono
>>
>> adj : done for the public good without compensation
>>
>> http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=pro+bono&db=*
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> > > Throughout her postings that I have read; one thing seems very
>> > > coherent
>> > > and intense ...
>> > >
>> > > She is very, very, very deliberate in what she does.
>> > >
>> > > Is this a bad thing, too?
>> I shall explain something about myself, agressively ...
>>
>> "Leslie Packer is VERY, VERY, VERY DELIBERATE in what she does."
>>
>> >From my own perspective; given the preferred manner by which I myself
>> *think*; my own observation in this regard, says it all. Leslie Packer
>> is VERY, VERY, VERY DELIBERATE in what she does.
>>
>> Meaning .... I cease looking further and rest confidently on what I
>> have already discerned.
>>
>> Moreover, in whatever, Leslie E. Packer, PhD wrote:
>> > On 18 Jul 2006 07:31:19 -0700, "Marcia" >
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > >
>> > >Caitriona Mac Fhiodhbhuidhe wrote:
>> > >> Raving Loonie wrote:
>> > >> <snipped>
>> > >> > Did you earn your PhD from the back of a cereal box?
>> > >> >
>> > >> > The x-no-archive makes a mockery of your message.
>> > >> >
>> > >> > ... IMO.
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >> Or, perhaps she doesn't want to be abused in the way many of us here
>> > >> have been? If you were in her position, would you want to have such
>> > >> lies about you posted all over Usenet, for anyone to find in a
>> > >> simple
>> > >> 'net search?
>> > >>
>> > >> Kitten
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >I agree. It's not clear to me how anyone can read anything more than
>> > >straightforward information in her post--nothing to be ashamed of or
>> > >hide, nothing out of line--unless my reading comprehension has dropped
>> > >signficantly in the past 48 hours.
>> > >
>> > >I think we've all seen how people can distort the truth and use it to
>> > >promote malicious agendas, so the x-no-archive decision makes a lot of
>> > >sense to me.
>> > >
>> > >Besides, why would anyone need this archived? At some point the
>> > >article
>> > >will be out-of-date, or will be replaced by more current information.
>> > >
>> > >marcia
>> > >LSFC
>> >
>> > You and Kitten are both quite correct in your hypotheses, but I won't
>> > discuss why publicly. Thank you both for giving me the benefit of any
>> > doubt.
>> >
>> > If anyone has any additional questions on the regulatory issue, they
>> > are welcome to email me. There is also an action alert up at
>> > Wrightslaw now: http://www.wrightslaw.com/news/06/abuse.nys.regs.htm
>> >
>> > If there are further updates on the issue, I'll post again.
>> >
>> > Leslie
>>
>> Explicitly highlighting, therefrom ...
>>
>> " ...You and Kitten are both quite correct in your hypotheses, but I
>> won't discuss why publicly. Thank you both for giving me the benefit
>> of any doubt. ..."
>>
>> These words reinforce <to me> that to which, I have already asserted
>> ...
>>
>> "Leslie Packer is VERY, VERY, VERY DELIBERATE in what she does."
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> > I would hope she's deliberate and organized. She has a specific goal
>> > she's trying to achieve. You keep posting messages that read as
>> > criticism; then, when you're called on it, you claim you're not
>> > criticizing her. You refuse to acknowledge and take responsibility for
>> > what you've written.
>> I do not consider my message to be a criticism. Yes, my understanding
>> of the term 'pro bono' was faulty. That *might* be important ... I am
>> suggesting that it is neither here nor there as it resides outside the
>> focus of what I perceive.
>>
>> My observation begins and ends with ....
>>
>> "Leslie Packer is VERY, VERY, VERY DELIBERATE in what she does."
>>
>>
>> > Imo, you have a lot of anger right now, ...
>> Yes, I certainly do.
>>
>> Notwithstanding such, I do not view Packer badly or with disfavor. I am
>> perplexed and bemused with my apparent failure at reasonably conveying
>> a facsimile of what I perceive. That being ....
>>
>> "Leslie Packer is VERY, VERY, VERY DELIBERATE in what she does."
>>
>> If she doesn't get paid for doing this sort of thing; it's a pity. IMO,
>> she is very, very good at it.
>>
>> Am I criticizing her?
>>
>> Let's look at those who earn money for being persuasive ...
>>
>> * Salesperson
>> * Lawyers
>> * Advertisers
>> * Entertainers
>> * Teachers
>> ....
>> * Politicians
>> * Paid lobbyists
>> * 'Not for profit' charitable fund raisers
>>
>> ( continuing ...
>>
>> > ... and you're pointing it in
>> > inappropriate directions. Maybe that feels safer than expressing it to
>> > the person or people you're really angry with, but, as a consequence,
>> > you're being unfair to someone who doesn't deserve it.
>> ... continued )
>>
>> Could Packer be a social worker?
>>
>> A curious profession.
>>
>> It seems that they get paid for advocating for the public good.
>> ( .. or someones good ... or something like that? )
>>
>> Is it a criticism to call someone a social worker?
>>
>>
>> > I'm angry with you for your behavior in this thread. You can be angry
>> > with me for jumping on you, if you want. I still like you, though.
>> >
>> > marcia
>> I am merely pointing out that "Leslie E. Packer, PhD" is a f*cking good
>> advocate. Moreover, there is nothing which is inherently untoward about
>> being 'such', regardless of whether the person is passionate or
>> disinterested in what they are advocating; aside from considerations of
>> whether or not they are renumerated for their efforts.
>
> Pardon me?
>
> Greed is hardly the only, nor the most powerful incentive for the
> dregs of society to obtain licenses as mental health "professionals
> lol".
>
> POWER is the most powerful incentive for the dregs of society to obtain
> licenses as mental health professionals (lol).
>
> Nothing illustrates that fact more clearly then the criminal activities
> which usenets mental health professionals (lol) engage in against
> usenet posters who perceive mental health professionals (lol) as the
> greedy, powerhungry, psychopathic dregs of socity they all are,
> rather then the scientists, experts, advocates, these pseudologues
> all pretend to be.
>
> In you are interesting in furthering your education wrt the
> racketeering by the greedy, power hungry, criminally insane
> psychopaths, aka mental health *professionals (lol) who have corrupted
> American society so it's FUBAR...see the bibliography wrt to
> *Psychodiagnostics".
>
> http://www.swarthmore.edu/SocSci/kgergen1/Psychodiagnostics/biblio.html#Part%20I
>