Dan Rogers (licensed Ft. Dodge, Iowa
psychologist) is a public office holder
and in an elected position as sppm moderator. Dan Rogers is also a
disgraceful malicious defamer, a stalker and harasser, and an unethical liar.
This web page is just to provide a glimpse into his character and motivations,
so people will know not to re-elect this horrible and dishonest and
untrustworthy
person to ANY public office. It is also the view of
this web page writer and
owner that Dan Rogers of Ft. Dodge, Iowa is UNFIT to practice clinical
psychology.
Also see the main [answers to] FAQ (frequently asked
questions) about the sci.psychology.psychotherapy
newsgroups by clicking THIS LINK.
|
April 2005 UPDATE Dan Rogers has shown that he will publicly lie about
basic facts about diagnostic criteria THIS LINK. CLICK THIS LINK FOR JUST A VERY SMALL SAMPLE OF ROGERS' MALICE WHICH I TELL LAWYERS ABOUT. The material on the web page (below) is
a VERY, VERY small sampling of the egregious |
PLEASE NOTE: The rest of this web page has not been updated in over 2 years.
Dan Rogers' real motivation for abuse. To lie about and
disparage a up-to-date accurate web site on the "state of the science"
of the field of psychotherapy. This site can now be seen at:
http://cyberper.cnc.net/index.htm
From: "Dan Rogers" <dlrogers@frontiernet.net>
Newsgroups: sci.psychology.psychotherapy, alt.usenet.kooks
Subject: Re: Brad, the Voice of the Future
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1998 08:43:50 -0600
Organization: Dan Rogers
Lines: 28
Message-ID: <721mc4$1dgu$1@node17.cwnet.frontiernet.net>
References: <199811070254.DAA17183@replay.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: as5200-2-43.ftd.ia.frontiernet.net
X-Complaints-To: abuse@frontiernet.net
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2110.0
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Xref: news alt.usenet.kooks:114598 sci.psychology.psychotherapy:70414
brad the fut wrote as "anonymous":
>I have read http://www.future.net/~bradj/index.htm and find it
>very sensible and progressive. What I really wonder about is
>why it made (makes?) such a big fuss here.
Since you asked: because it is dumb.
Nothing new or useful on the whole drivel-driven, poorly conceived,
html-impaired web "page." You don't even know the difference
between a web site and a web page.
Also because the whole dumb document 1) talks about old,
worn out concerns in the field of psychotherapy research, concerns
that have been passed for over 25 years, with more relevant and
important topics under investigation now, and 2) it claims as
original thought a set of concepts and issues that have been
common knowledge in clinical psychology for decades.
By one definition of the word, that would constitute plagiarism.
I'll move this thread to alt.usenet.kooks, where it belongs.
(end quote of Dan's post)
(He "moved the discussion" to alt.usenet.kooks to disparage me
in ABUSIVE WAYS there.)
Reply to Dan Rogers about the web page
(now at http://cyberper.cnc.net/index.htm). These are replies
to his FALSE allegations that the web page is NOT ORIGINAL, NOT CURRENT,
AND NOT SUPPORTED BY MAJOR PEOPLE IN THE FIELD. ALL these
accusations Dan Rogers, unethical psychologist from Ft. Dodge, Iowa,
HAS MADE. He has been proven a liar on each of these counts
SEVERAL TIMES. HE
HAS and WILL LIE INTENTIONALLY.
He both lies
about events and lies about the state of his science. He
cannot be trusted. He continues to knowingly and intentionally
lie.
First addressing the originality and the current data issues:
Contents of my web page which is a matter of contention: My web page
covers original ideas or reviews and commentaries on recent or on-going
studies (and describes what the implications of these studies may be):
* Original Manifesto -- a major distinction I outline and propose in this
manifesto is when a treatment should properly be termed a "therapy'" and
when it should be termed "counseling" (a matter up GREAT debate and a LACK
of agreeement, at least up until 2 years ago -- when it was last debated in
the newsgroups). I point out that standards for a "therapy" to be
considered "validated" are **still under review TODAY** by Div. 17 of the
APA.
* My manifesto advocates the testing of the efficacy of peer counselors (or
other paras) by comparing their effectiveness in **controlled studies with
professionals** -- as of two years ago some leaders in the field still
questioned the ethics of this (and I showed these studies to be more
ethical than many of the "waitlist" and Placebo studies now done). I
support the appropriate development of a true mental health care system
with more adjunct roles (i.e. true, well-defined paraprofessional roles).
I also argue that such studies are needed to much better define where
professional help is needed.
* I advocate practitioner in each individual agency to work together
bettering reliability of diagnoses and treatments so the term "science
practionioner" has a real legitimate meaning (and is not false and
misleading). I describe how the term right now is empty of meaning and
lead to false pretenses. This interrater reliability work is **NOT
done today**.
* I review the most **recent meta-analysis** on "other helpers" by Stein
and Lambert and show this study to be a fraud, misrepresenting what the
hodge-podge of UNcontrolled studies mean.
* Using my own calculations I compare the strength of results of
psychotherapy with the difference found between men and women on some
scales of some major personality inventories. ALSO: I point out that
trends in a **recent study** by Anderson and Lambert (1995) may indicate
that the results of "therapy" may differ substantially based on the sort of
control group used (we may just need controlled studies and/or larger
groups of studies to get significant differences between efficacy studies
using differnet sorts of control groups).
* I note some research that has indicated that psychotherapists get much
more treatment than any typical client (i.e. than other people **who get
treatment**) and point out some other congruent indications that
psychotherapists may well not be well-adapted people. I make the
connection between this and the *recent findings* on defensiveness and the
inability to show good sorts of empathy.
* I point out that, according to the research ***summarized in the VERY
recently released DSM-IV Sourcebook Vol. 2***, very little work on
investigating ways of acheiveing interrater reliabilities of diagnostic
criteria was done between the last DSM and the new one. I argue against
just developing criteria "in committees" every decade or so.
* I compare the interrater reliabilities PRESENTLY sought by a professor
named G. Meyer for inkblot interpretations WITH the interrater
reliabilities show with the ***NEW ICD-10*** diagnostic criteria.
* I outline (in an original, specific hypotheis) how major bolstered false
pretenses of psychotherapists may lead to abuses of power and abuses of
clients. I indicate how the hypothesis is congruent and similar to some
other findings in the field.
* I attack the APA for not promoting the needed basic research indicated above.
* I offer a critique of Martin Seligman's ***RECENT review*** of the
Consumer Reports study (uncontrolled survey) on consumer satisfaction with
therapy. I offer a clear alternative for better or more important research
that would meaningfully indicate the unique effects of professional
treatment (where this exists).
* I give a detailed review and in-depth critique of the **1995
meta-analysis*** of Stein and Lambert
in the Jour. of Consulting and Clinical Psyc.
* I point out that even the above authors see the most recent well-
controlled study on the topic they review as the old 1979 Strupp and Hadley
study.
Here are quotes of some of the several pieces of support for the
facts and views on Brad Jesness' web site:
Support for Brad's views (at http://cyberper.cnc.net/index.htm)
from MAJOR LEADERS IN THE CLINICAL/COUNSELING PSYCHOLOGY FIELD (the
facts and views Brad sites are the actual reason for the hostility
against Brad which has included unethical behavior and stalking and
harassment by 'professionals' in the field.
Major Distinguished Clinical Professor supports Brad's Views.
Major Distinguished Clinical Professor, Alvin Mahrer, one of this year's
recipients of the Distinguished Psychologist Award,
after Reading Parts 1 - 3 of my major paper at:
http://www.future.net/~bradj/index.htm SAID (quoting him in part):
"Good for you! I like what you are arguing,
and what you are working toward achieving makes good sense, I think. ...
On to more of your good thinking..."
After reading the end of Part 3 through Part 5, Prof. Mahrer said, in part:
" I am impressed with your comprehensive and tough criticisms of therapists
and their training. Excellent work.
My book (the best of ll) can feed and support your critical notions."
After reading Part 6, this Distinguished Clinical professor said (in part):
"I am reading chapters in O'donohue and Kitchener's Philosophy and
Psychology. Some of the chapters on ethical codes are hand-in-glove with
what you write.
Publish your stuff!...
Most of the issues you cover are (a) very important, but (b) not in my
experiential approach."
After reading the Addendum to part 6, Prof. Alvin Mahrer says:
(again,quoting part of what he said):
" Your criticisms and analyses of this batch of material reads as if it
ought to be in an APA Psychologist article. Why not? Do it!
I agree with all your solid points.
Again, I do research to discover more about how to do psychotherapy
better."
AND:
Author: Allen E Ivey
Email: [Ivey's email address deleted by me]
Date:1996/07/11
Forums: sci.psychology.psychotherapy
Yes, he is controversial, but he raised important issues. Psychology
seems to me in a narrow fog and brad is one tryinig to free us to
think more openly.
I am not aware of efforts to censor Brad. If so, that is a disgrace and
speaks very poorly about some narrow mind(s).
Brad perhaps needs to be a bit more patient with us, but most of all I
respect him, his ability, and his willingness to challenge us all.
Allen Ivey, Distinguished Univ. Professor
U Mass. Amherst
AND
(quoting) Dr. Paul Barrett, chief clinical psychology researcher:
"... monitoring the largely evidence-based arguments put up by Brad, I have
yet to see much of a defence from the assembled clinicians on the
CLINICAL-PSYCHOLOGISTS listserv that could be said to address the thrust of
his arguments. This is not to say that I agree with the manner in which Brad
expresed his arguments (which revolve around only one or two very simple,
*but potentially devastating propositions*), but within the body of several
of his messages, these propositions did seem to be relatively unambiguous.
[(*s inserted by me)]
Barrett, again:..."[but if Ziskin is correct] then the clinical profession
is akin to a form of wizadry. If he is largely incorrect, the profession
should be able to silence critics such as Ziskin, and the Brad Jessness's of
the world! Perhaps a published rebuke exists already? If so, could someone
post up a reference or two that I can follow up."
"... my job is largely to do with assessment and treatment evaluation, plus
innovation where required. I have to go back to first principles in order to
determine where, how, and why, both assessments and treatments are
implemented, using standards of evidence appraisal that I would use in my
more usual work/research as an individual differences research
psychologist." Paul Barrett, Chief Scientist, Ashworth Hospital,
Liverpool, UK; Hon. Senior Research Fellow, Dept. of Clinical Psychology,
Liverpool University
AND
Quoting :
Now the quote of the serious distinguished clinical researcher and
chief U.K. scientist(quoted with his permission):
Message-ID: <eMKZdpnV9GA.364@nih2naaa.prod2.compuserve.com>
Newsgroups:sci.psychology.psychotherapy,alt.usenet.kooks,alt.brad.jesness.die.die.die
Xref: news alt.brad.jesness.die.die.die:1026 alt.usenet.kooks:84310
sci.psychology.psychotherapy:48321
Hello
With regard to the recent postings by Brad Jesness, and the use of my name
etc. as a supporter of his documents etc.... let me clear up one or two
issues.
I agree that the major foci of Brad's 30 page document are worth considered
professional discussion and some very careful thought. Specifically:
1. The difference between counseling and therapy, including the
consideration of just what constitutes "therapy".
2. The problems with placebo and waitlist controls, and effect sizes in the
controlled studies literature. Further, the whole issue of what constitutes
"therapy" and "outcome" in such studies is problematical.
3. The problem of categorisation boundaries of disorders in the DSM -
reliability issues etc.
4. The problem of diagnostic accuracy/agreement on the part of both
psychiatrists and psychologists.
5. The legal status of the clinical psychologist as an "expert".
6. The overall standards of "practice" mandated by the APA.
However, I'm not sure anyone would disagree that these are some of the most
taxing issues facing the profession. For example, just what is a desired
"outcome" - who "desires" it - how can we measure such outcomes (if at
all?), what constitutes a therapy (such that we can distinguish it from
"non-therapy"? Also, for those who might have digested some of my arguments
concerning science and measurement, I'm sure that the issues now seem even
more problematical - as they should. Remember also that the three volume
series edited by the late Jay Ziskin(1995) provides much of the detailed
legal and technical arguments surrounding the issues encompassed in Brad's
documents. Of course, several critics have accused him of being selective in
certain areas - but the sheer weight and breadth of evidence brought forward
by the various contributors dwarfs such arguments.
So, this is where I agree with Brad that the APA should be considering if
there is any kind of firm recommendations that could be made concerning
clinical practice. However, this is easy to propose - but damned difficult
to see how an organisation can approach the issues in a formal manner.
[snip of short content-irrelevant paragraph]
Regards ... Paul
P.S. Should anybody wish to quote or cross-post this message, feel free. As
always, I stand by everything I post.
-Reference-
Ziskin, J.Z. (1995) Coping with Psychiatric and Psychological Testimony
Vols. 1, 2, and 3. Law and Psychology Press.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Barrett Direct Tel: (44)-1555-841343
email: p.barrett@liv.ac.uk Hospital Tel: (44)-1555-840293
CompuServe: 100035,2124 Fax: (44)-1555-840024
http://www.liv.ac.uk/~pbarrett/paulhome.htm
Chief Scientist, The State Hospital, Carstairs, Scotland, ML11 8RP, UK
(end quote)
******
Dan Rogers and his personally abusive behavior on abuse
newsgroups.
Here is where Dan Rogers, unethical Ft. Dodge Iowa psychologist,
makes it clear he wants to vote Brad Jesness NOT HUMAN, after
making other disparaging remarks IN ABUSE NEWSGROUPS.:
From: "Dan Rogers" <dlrogers@frontiernet.net>
Newsgroups: sci.psychology.psychotherapy, alt.usenet.kooks,
alt.brad.jesness.die.die.dieSubject: brad the fut requested a mathematical proof and gets it!!
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 19:57:03 -0500
Organization: Dan Rogers
Lines: 51
Message-ID: <6u6sm1$4u8$1@node17.cwnet.frontiernet.net>
References: <199809212059.WAA17204@replay.com>
<4qzN1.1225$Ge.3727073@ptah.visi.com> <3606C6D7.24D2@hotmail.com>
<8HzN1.1230$Ge.3727073@ptah.visi.com>
<3606CC89.7121@hotmail.com> <m7AN1.1236$Ge.3727073@ptah.visi.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: as5200-2-22.ftd.ia.frontiernet.net
X-Complaints-To: abuse@frontiernet.net
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2110.0
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Xref: news alt.brad.jesness.die.die.die:2377
alt.usenet.kooks:108163 sci.psychology.psychotherapy:66179
jeremy@please don't spam me .wavefront .com wrote in message ...
>Just before high-siding Cognitee <good_brad@hotmail.com> shrieked:
>: Proof my butt !!!
>
>Well, I'm sure there's a mathematician out there somewhere who'd
>be willing to give this one a shot...
I'll be glad to! (My BA was in pure math, and this request by
bradnee is a challenge.)
If A and B are points and A is not B, then there is a
point C such that C is between A and B.
bradnee's buttocks cannot fit between any two points
A and B, therefore bradnee's butt is not between A and B and
all points that are not between A and B and are not A or B
are included in the set of points that constitutes bradnee's
buttocks.
There also exists a point D such that D is not between
A and B, is not A or B, A is not between D and B, and
B is not between D and A.
The statements "bradnee has a brain" and "there is a
universe" are mutually exclusive: if one statement is
true then the other must be false.
There is a universe. Therefore the statement that "bradnee
has a brain" is false unless bradnee's brain includes one and
only one point, BJ.
There are no points A or B that could tolerate bradnee; therefore
BJ (bradnee's brain" is not between A and B and is not A or B.
bradnee's buttocks are not between A and B. As shown
above, all points that are not A or B and are not between A
and B are bradnee's buttocks.
Therefore, bradnee's brain is in his buttocks.
* * * *
That was fun, bradnee. Can we next deal with proofing that you
are human?
-------------
Here is where Dan Rogers wants to cast his vote 'NO' on the
question "Is Brad a human being". He follows up the similar
'work' of co-sppm 'moderator' John Price.
From: "Dan L. Rogers, Ph.D." <dlrogers@frontiernet.net>
Newsgroups: alt.usenet.kooks
Subject: Re: VOTE: No confidence in Bradley L. Jesness KoTM, LMA, LMA, GK, JGMA as a human being.
Date: 27 Jun 1998 03:19:46 GMT
Organization: Dan L. Rogers, Ph.D.
Lines: 28
Message-ID: <6n1oci$2fa6$1@node17.cwnet.frontiernet.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: as5200-2-45.ftd.ia.frontiernet.net
X-Complaints-To: abuse@frontiernet.net
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Xref: news alt.usenet.kooks:92989
I wanna vote. Where's the post?
John M Price wrote in message <35930070.0@calwebnnrp>...
>
>Perhaps this thread should be 'boosted' for quick expiry times? I'd reall
>like a score or more.
>
>TIA.
>
>
>
>--
>John M. Price, PhD jmprice@calweb.com
>Life: Chemistry, but with feeling! | PGP Key on request or by finger!
> Email responses to my Usenet articles will be posted at my discretion.
>Comoderator: sci.psychology.psychotherapy.moderated Atheist# 683
Here is 'Dr.' Dan Rogers actually nominating Brad for a KOOK award
in alt.usenet.kooks. (Such campaigns were also led by 'Dr.' Leslie
E. Packer, NY psychologist and long time newsgroup leader. In fact,
she and her children sometimes comprised 1/4 of the votes a
KOOK winner received!!)
From: "Dan L. Rogers, Ph.D." <dlrogers@frontiernet.net>
Newsgroups: alt.usenet.kooks
Subject: Nomination: The Custer Award
Date: 1 Aug 1998 14:10:13 GMT
Organization: Dan L. Rogers, Ph.D.
Lines: 49
Message-ID: <6pv7k5$1lgq$1@node17.cwnet.frontiernet.net>
References: <hangspamhigh-ya02408000R0108980051010001@news.concentric.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: as5200-2-32.ftd.ia.frontiernet.net
X-Complaints-To: abuse@frontiernet.net
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Xref: news alt.usenet.kooks:99894
Nomination:
What a keen award, and I can think of nobody more deserving
that bradnee (Brad Jesness).
He has only recently announced that he roundly defeated the
president of the American Psychological Association in a
debate a couple of years ago in a newsgroup, citing as evidence
the fact that the scholar no longer bothers responding to
bradnee's statements.
Bradnee now uses over 330 suckpuppets, and counts them
as his supporters. Apparently, he believes their votes, and
uses this to avoid ever admitting that he has lost an argument.
His stellar talents at maintaining that he is correct, in the face
of loving and tender responses from alt.flame and alt.usenet.kooks,
is incredible.
He has my vote!!
Phoenix wrote in message ...
>For many moons your Friendly Neighborhood LMA Supreme Dictator
>has searched for that true and finishing touch to complete the collection
>of LMA honors in alt.usenet.kooks. KotM's realm gets to have seven;
>why shouldn't this one? Alas, things like sock puppetry, legal bluffing
>and Nazi-namecalling have become commonplace on Usenet. However,
>this award shall honor those who strive farther, to cherish the moment,
>and savor the Victory of Defeat. In other words, those that get their
>@$$ kicked by 3,232,308,232.01 flames, declare glorious victory, and
>keep coming back for more. Those damn fool souls that can NEVER,
>EVER accept their fate, even if it means riding with a target painted on
>them in front of Sitting Bull's entire armada.
>
>I hereby announce the creation of the Gen. George Armstrong Custer
>"Kicked @$$" Award, the highly dubious honor to be given those who
>relish reliving their Last Stand, over and over and over again.
>
>You may call this the Custer Award.
>
>--
>Free.*'s Oldest Inhabitant (Free.* = "no rules, just right.")
>--
>/\ Cabal Obsidian Order, Operative X (Directorate), aka CNS CXCIX
> \ /\ Master Kookologist At Your Service - http://web.shorty.com/kotm
> \/ \ Freedom Wankers of Usenet - http://www2.cybernex.net/~charliec
> / \ "When the Cabal smiles, IT'S TOO LATE TO BE AFRAID!" - tinc
******
Another kook nomination from 'Dr.' Dan Rogers, former member of the Iowa
Psychology Licensing Board and sppm moderator. He posts to the ABUSE newsgroup
FOUNDED by 'Dr.' John Price, co-sppm moderator (EARLIER):
From: "Dan Rogers" <dlrogers@frontiernet.net>
Newsgroups: alt.usenet.kooks, alt.brad.jesness.die.die.die
Subject: Re: nomination: UBC Brad Jesness
Date: 12 Sep 1998 01:45:07 GMT
Organization: Dan Rogers
Lines: 24
Message-ID: <6tcjn3$os2$1@node17.cwnet.frontiernet.net>
References: <mqeK1.951$E9.3030205@ptah.visi.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: as5200-2-4.ftd.ia.frontiernet.net
X-Complaints-To: abuse@frontiernet.net
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2110.0
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Xref: news alt.brad.jesness.die.die.die:2197 alt.usenet.kooks:107222
Oh, it's even better!! He complained to a licensing board about
me, and now he's threatening to sue them because they haven't
dealt with his complaint.
He is an incredible crybaby. Fantastic!! Lifetime achievement award
caliber!!!
jeremy@please don't spam me .wavefront .com wrote in message ...
>I hereby nominate Brad Jesness for the award of Usenet's
>Biggest Crybaby. Yes, when a woman whom he called
>"child killer" calls him immature, he immediately
>whines to her postmaster.
>
>Note also, that when I called him an immature
>dink (because of all the nastiness he was spreading),
>he immediately sent some threats/complaints to
>my future ISP as well.
>--
>jeremy wavefront com 1989 Honda VTR250
>DoD # (pending) 1971 Honda CL350
>"I could not move any faster if we were under full scale
>attack..." -- Scotty
More newsgroup abuse in abuse newsgroups. These threads started
by 'Dr.' Dan Rogers himself:
Just for the record, the following post and new thread
was initiated to alt.brad.jesness.die.die.die and
alt.usenet.kooks (it contains completely
unfounded libelous allegations as well as crude insults):
From: "Dan Rogers" <dlrogers@frontiernet.net>
Newsgroups: alt.usenet.kooks, alt.brad.jesness.die.die.die
Subject: bradnee is a fut!!
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 20:28:27 -0500
Organization: Dan Rogers
Lines: 69
Message-ID: <6tpooi$13bq$1@node17.cwnet.frontiernet.net>
References: <good_brad-1009962339190001@ts001d43.min-mn.concentric.net
> <6tcvbd$rvc@tako.wwa.com> <6te0q7$fve$1@node17.cwnet.frontiernet.net>
<35FA8F7C.4C3E@hotmail.com>
<6tefr9$1s62$1@node17.cwnet.frontiernet.net> <36006091.95577D0F@mnsinc.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: as5200-2-12.ftd.ia.frontiernet.net
X-Complaints-To: abuse@frontiernet.net
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2110.0
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Xref: news alt.brad.jesness.die.die.die:2287 alt.usenet.kooks:107654
You, also, are correct. I feel terrible for so badly shaming an
animal like the ferret. Or the goat. I eat meat, and I swat my cat
on occasion; I am not a pro-animal crybaby. But still, no animal
deserves comparison to or equation with bradnee.
We need a new line of nouns that will have no reference except to
bradnee.
The first one is "fut!" bradnee is a fut! A pustulant, rotting, offensive
fut!
Sounds good, doesn't it?
Larry C. Lyons wrote in message <36006091.95577D0F@mnsinc.com>...
>Dan,
>
>As a ferret owner, I take offence to your comparing bradness to certain
>portions of the ferret anatomy. You are being insulting to an animal
>that deserves a lot better. Brad is far more similar to a putrescent
>rotting mucus dripping from a dead goat's scrotum than a ferret's
>behind. At least that dead goat possesses something that brad has
>admitted he lacks. Although I am sure that many goats, if they could
>talk, would also object to being compared to brad.
>
>Regards,
>
>Larry
>
>--
>Larry C. Lyons
>http://www.mnsinc.com/solomon/
>-------------------------------------------
>Life is complex.
>It has both real and imaginary parts.
>-------------------------------------------
>
>Dan Rogers wrote:
>>
[snip]
From: "Dan Rogers" <dlrogers@frontiernet.net>
Newsgroups: alt.brad.jesness.die.die.die, alt.usenet.kooks
Subject: Re: Woo Woo! I'm finally here!
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 16:43:59 -0500
Organization: Dan Rogers
Lines: 24
Message-ID: <6trvvt$193e$1@node17.cwnet.frontiernet.net>
References: <6pvL1.1777$E9.6038781@ptah.visi.com>
<d5hzwVCQvBA2EwRE@wharton.demon.co.uk> <C5c0geCkyBA2EwzC@wharton.demon.co.uk>
<RiVL1.98$Ge.188035@ptah.visi.com>
<XIORdNAo0EA2Ewi8@wharton.demon.co.uk> <X79M1.281$Ge.753399@ptah.visi.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: as5200-2-42.ftd.ia.frontiernet.net
X-Complaints-To: abuse@frontiernet.net
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2110.0
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Xref: news alt.usenet.kooks:107768 alt.brad.jesness.die.die.die:2316
jeremy@please don't spam me .wavefront .com wrote in message ...
...
> But hey, I'm still
>trying to figure out exactly what a fair measure of intelligence
I think a very fair, valid and reliable measure of intelligence is my
(Dan's)
personal opinion.
As a point in showing both validity of my opinion as a measure of
intelligence, I shall herewith evaluate the intelligence of bradnee:
bradnee is a dummy
bradnee is a fut. and a scatthrace
There! I am accurate. Very accurate!!
From: "Dan Rogers" <dlrogers@frontiernet.net>
Newsgroups: alt.usenet.kooks, alt.brad.jesness.die.die.die
Subject: Re: Crybaby evidence - Jesness [Was; 'Packer Associates
with KNOWN 'Net Abuser']
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 16:26:54 -0500
Organization: Dan Rogers
Lines: 24
Message-ID: <6truvr$1rqe$1@node17.cwnet.frontiernet.net>
References: <582cee4482a02640df2a3ed4f00a1b02@anonymous>
<U++BBaDt1WA2EwgH@wharton.demon.co.uk>
<iLeM1.413$Ge.851975@ptah.visi.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: as5200-2-42.ftd.ia.frontiernet.net
X-Complaints-To: abuse@frontiernet.net
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2110.0
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Xref: news alt.brad.jesness.die.die.die:2313 alt.usenet.kooks:107764
Certainly bradnee, as a pustulant fut and self-abusing scatthrace
deserves all that he has coming.
Grid square. Carpet bombing. Ass kicking. He deserves it all.
jeremy@please don't spam me .wavefront .com wrote in message ...
>In alt.brad.jesness.die.die.die Peter <Peter@getlostwharton.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
>: I guess this means you got kicked off hotmail as soon as you got back
>: on?
>
>: Wait until you experience the rest of it.
>
>: I am doing what the British artillery call "grid square" activities.
>
>Ah, yes, Grid Square. We have a similar term, for use with
>our B-52 bombers: Carpet Bombing.
>--
>jeremy wavefront com 1989 Honda VTR250
>DoD #WildCard BNASPAM #3 1971 Honda CL350
>"I could not move any faster if we were under full scale
>attack..." -- Scotty
AND:
From: "Dan Rogers" <dlrogers@frontiernet.net>
Newsgroups: alt.usenet.kooks, alt.brad.jesness.die.die.die
Subject: Re: Seeking NOMINATIONS for Usenet's Biggest Crybaby
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 16:36:55 -0500
Organization: Dan Rogers
Lines: 32
Message-ID: <6trvim$jds$1@node17.cwnet.frontiernet.net>
References: <hangspamhigh-ya02408000R1109981248390001@news.mindspring.
com> <6tcai9$oe8$1@samba.rahul.net>
<35fbd281.3431041@news.mindspring.com>
<mARdv2AqLs$1Ewww@wharton.demon.co.uk> <360143c5.23655200@news.mindspring.com>
<SJ9M1.298$Ge.753399@ptah.visi.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: as5200-2-42.ftd.ia.frontiernet.net
X-Complaints-To: abuse@frontiernet.net
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2110.0
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Xref: news alt.brad.jesness.die.die.die:2315 alt.usenet.kooks:107767
I'm sure bradnee could do even better, except that one of his
hands is always busy.
In a small way.
jeremy@please don't spam me .wavefront .com wrote in message ...
>In alt.usenet.kooks Taylor Netscum
<taylor_netscum@hotmail.OUTTHIS&THIS.com> wrote:
>: No doubt on the 380 sock-puppets. However our kook Eddie
>: has claimed he will creat 500+
>
>That's okay, Bradnee has said that he will create 380 more,
>thus bringing his total to ~760, or, more than 500 :)
>
>: Well, with Bradee, Skidmark and Pantyhead I will have problems.
>: Which one of these kooks will get the vote. I still think
>: I should get three,
>: and then I will not vote for the next two months :)
>
>Um, Brad's trying to forge my name (and doing a really shitty
>job of it) over in rec.moto. He's made 3 forged posts,
>thus tying me for Peter's record. One more, and I've got
>the title :)
>
>Does Eddie or Skidmark do this?
>--
>jeremy wavefront com 1989 Honda VTR250
>DoD # (pending) BNASPAM #3 1971 Honda CL350
>"I could not move any faster if we were under full scale
>attack..." -- Scotty
Here is an example of a psychologist (and former Iowa Psychology
Licensing Board member AND present sppm moderator) "moving" a
completely appropriate and on-topic post to spp to abuse newsgroups. :
From: "Dan Rogers" <dlrogers@frontiernet.net>
Newsgroups: sci.psychology.psychotherapy, sci.psychology.misc, alt.usenet.kooks, alt.brad.jesness.die.die.die
Subject: Thread moved to auk: brad re: Intro. to Client Advocates
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 1998 16:59:35 -0600
Organization: Dan Rogers
Lines: 122
Message-ID: <749pk0$2jga$1@node17.cwnet.frontiernet.net>
References: <199812041542.QAA16249@replay.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: as5200-1-28.ftd.ia.frontiernet.net
X-Complaints-To: abuse@frontiernet.net
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3
Xref: news alt.brad.jesness.die.die.die:2646 alt.usenet.kooks:117593 sci.psychology.misc:23533 sci.psychology.psychotherapy:73474
There is no point responding to brad's posts, like the one below, on
spp, as it just annoys people who have a right to enjoy interchange
without the interference of bradless' noise.
I enourage everybody to respond only on alt.usenet.kooks or
alt.brad.jesness.die.die.die, where bradless really belongs.
Anonymous wrote in message <199812041542.QAA16249@replay.com>...
>The following (BELOW) will serve to introduce our group.
>Believe NOTHING that you read in the newsgroups
>about the group or any of its members from some of the
>hostile, unethical and inappropriate "regulars"
>in the sci.psychology newsgroups. Much is intentional
>gross misrepresentation, false unfounded allegations,
>and outright lies. (This just shows the only
>response a defensive field can have when cornered
>about its blatant wrongs.)
>
>Part of what is
>presented below is the Client Advocates Manifesto
>of the rights to good treatment and good information
>clients should demand. For more, see the
>web page: http://www.future.net/~bradj/index.htm
>Thank you. -- Client Advocates
>
>
>Information and Precautions for Psychotherapy Consumers": Part 1:
>
>Most often, "therapists" have no special (and no meaningful) professional
>role as *science-practitioners* (using any reasonable definition or
>standard). (This is true whether you are talking about what lay people
>commonly consider a full real science or how scientists define it -- in
>basic ways the layman's outlook and that of the scientist are actually
>quite similar on what constitutes real "science".)
>Counselors/"therapists" are typically (BY THEIR BEHAVIOR, or modus
>operandi) no more scientists than many of us.
>
>Furthermore, there is an acknowledged LACK OF GOOD STANDARDS FOR
>CONSIDERING A "THERAPY" VALIDATED. Division 17 (Counseling
>Psychology) of the APA is now *AT PRESENT* trying to find better (and
>acceptable) standards for considering a "therapy" validated. GIVEN THIS
>AND GIVEN THE STATE OF THE FIELD OTHERWISE (AND GIVEN COMMON
>INEXCUSABLE FAULTS IN STANDARDS-IN-PRACTICE *AND* INEXCUSABLE
>RESEARCH GAPS) THIS IS WHAT I RECOMMEND:
>
>AS A COUNSELING AND PSYCHOLOGY INSTRUCTOR THIS IS WHAT I TELL
>PEOPLE SEEKING COUNSELING: Don't use a counselor/therapist who does
>not subscribe to the basic tenets of Client Advocates. The positions taken
>in the manifesto (quoted below) are so basic to good reason and good
>honest service that I recommend people show a copy of the manifesto to
>perspective counselors/therapists before choosing one. Ask: "Do you
>subscribe to the positions stated here?" If the answer is "no," ask:
>"what problems do you have with it." If there are any "problems," except
>with the idea of paraprofessionals, THEN seek another helper. No one
>should accept a counselor/therapist (at least one of his own choice) that
>does not subscribe to such most reasonable and basic principles of
>fairness, good science conduct, and good practice. Some of the very best
>in the counseling field support the tenets of Client Advocates and any
>good counselor/therapist should as well. It is in the interest of all.
>
>The "Client Advocates" Manifesto:
>
>"Client Advocates": It is a client and science advocacy group,
>dedicated to furthering science standards and practices in the therapy
>field. We insist on fair and proper representation of treatments and on
>providing information about costly or limited treatment options available
>to clients "up front". We believe options and evidence of their
>efficacies should be provided to clients before they enter a course of
>counseling or therapy. The various treatments and programs offered by
>each professional mental health service provider should be outlined in
>some detail in a booklet made available to clients. Only this would
>provide
>reasonable information before the expense of and commitment to a course
>of treatment.
>
>Also, techniques or methods used that have NOT been clearly shown to
>have efficacy AND validated for a particular, reliably-identifiable
>problem
>type (i.e. showing blind inter-rater reliability) are NOT to be referred
>to
>as "therapy." Correspondingly, when what is done is COUNSELING, the
>cooperative nature of this should be made clear and it
>should be properly represented, engendering appropriate expectations.
>Counseling is considered a most noble cooperative endeavor, requiring the
>most consideration, judgment, and intelligence. Those who are
>well-adapted will be better counselors. For this reason, and considering
>the rest of the evidence, counselors/therapists should have a long history
>of good adaptation.
>
>Moreover, Client Advocates believes daily standards in practice
>should provide for on-going research (such as for the development of
>reliable diagnoses) and this should be done within each large mental
>health service agency. Furthermore, basic foundation research
>definitively showing that graduate-school-trained counselors are
>superior to other sources of help must be done to establish the range of
>problems for which special treatment by professionals is actually better
>(and not inferior to other more accessible and less costly sources of
>help, e.g. peer counselors or paraprofessionals). Client Advocates also
>supports (given at present there is no evidence against it and some good
>evidence in its favor): peer counseling programs and counseling programs
>for paraprofessionals. Client Advocates seeks to demystify
>mental health professions and rid it of great myths. We hope for a
>sensible, delineated mental health care SYSTEM, with the care often
>involving peers and paraprofessionals and for care to be provided by
>individuals within a client's working community.
>
>PURPOSES OF THE ORGANIZATION:
>
>Client Advocates functions as a support organ for people standing up
>for what's right: what's right for themselves if they are a client and
>what is right for the science and the field. WE encourage and support
>each other. We can specialize as need be or work together. BUT: All
>initiatives are INDIVIDUAL. Clients are encouraged to seek what is right
>for themselves by asserting the tenets of the group's manifesto.
>Researchers work toward and promote needed foundation research and the
>exploration of new untested ideas. They also work for more of a true
>science-practitioner role for clinicians.
>
>
>
AND
From: "Dan Rogers" <dlrogers@frontiernet.net>
Newsgroups: sci.psychology.psychotherapy
Subject: Quickly moved to auk and abjddd: Brad is Correct and he is Good (gagggg!)
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 18:29:23 -0600
Organization: Dan Rogers
Lines: 27
Message-ID: <756v15$184a$1@node17.cwnet.frontiernet.net>
References: <199812151633.RAA23170@replay.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: as5200-2-41.ftd.ia.frontiernet.net
X-Complaints-To: abuse@frontiernet.net
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3
Xref: news sci.psychology.psychotherapy:74628
This dumb drivel is of no use to people who want to carry on intelligent
discussion. Please, anybody who responds to it, move it to
alt.usenet.kooks or alt.brad.jesness.die.die.die, where all his
stuff belongs.
Anonymous wrote in message <199812151633.RAA23170@replay.com>...
>Did it ever occur to the "pro-status-quo therapy" forces that
>Brad might not even be here? There is no evidence that he has
>posted anywhere in about a month.
>
>It is also abundantly clear that you want to suppress some views.
>Well, I read Brad's page -- http://www.future.net/~bradj/index.htm --
>and can say that it is very very reasonable, quite well-supported,
>and seems to be correct. IT ASKS FOR NEEDED RADICAL
>CHANGES IN THE FIELD. These changes are simply those
>needed for good client service and science.
>
>It only adds credibility to Brad's positions that you argue against
>them so inappropriately. You obviously cannot defend rationally
>against Brad's positions and his clear assessments and proposals.
>
>You "artful doggers" are clearly nothing but defensive, unethical
>self-serving bruts !
>
******
Quote of part of a complaint to the APA Ethics people about
'Dr." Dan Rogers:
Dan Rogers, violating Standard 1.09 ("In work-related activities, psychologists respect
the values, attitudes, and opinions that differ from there own.") He was presenting
himself in a public newsgroup as a psychologist in a educating role and in so doing not
only disparaged my views, but he make false charges of academic misconduct against
me (plagiarism, and other serious charges of academic misconduct). His false charges
were NEVER backed by evidence but he made them repeatedly. His charges also varied
wildly and over time they varied in ways that were logically inconsistent (essentially
proving he must be misrepresenting facts in the field). Also in the process of
disparaging my views, Dan Rogers intentionally mischaracterized my views and he also
clearly (in other ways) falsely represented the data in the field. All this is very, very,
very well documented in the material I have submitted.
Dan Rogers also violated Standard 1.11 ("Psychologists do not engage in sexual
harassment, ...") His harasssment included almost countless times over several
months of teasing me about being "dickless." He also harassed me in other ways
All this is extremely well documented in the material I submitted.
I may find other charges, though I some how doubt it will be with your help. I see no
justice in your field. I have yet to see an ounce of fairness from any psychologist
or their representative on these matters.
If you charge me and find me guilty there is no way you could not find Dr. Dan Rogers of
Ft. Dodge, Iowa also guilty. If you find him guilty and don't find him guilty, I'll sue you.
The Committee should think about all this very long and hard before they act to defame me.
The APA Ethics People had to be informed of the following:
Dr. Rogers, on at least two occassions, has said or clearly indicated that some
of the posts of his I complain about are forgeries. This claim that there are ANY
forgeries among those posts of his
is absolutely false. There are a couple of reasons that there is no credibility to
his claim and it is very likely that the "headers" of his posts could be shown objectively
and without a doubt (via contact with his Internet Service Provider) to have come from
him.
Without contacting his ISP, there are 2 ways we can see that Dr. Dan Rogers is lying about
there being some forgories.
#1 These posts were all made to the newsgroups as indicated. They were made at
a time when Dr. Rogers posted almost daily. He would have seen the "forgeries"
at that time and said something about it (without any reasonable doubt). It is
absolutely totally non-credible that Dr. Rogers would not see posts of his that
were forgeries to newsgroups he participating in almost daily or that he
would fail to point out forgeries at that time. The first time Dr. Rogers said a
word about forgeries was months after all the documentation I have provided
was already gathered up and submitted to his State Board, and he knew it. He
simply lied about some posts being forgeries many months after any of them
were made to protect himself or protect himself from embarassment. Never
to this date has a single particular post which is supposedly a forgery been
identified as such by Dr. Rogers.
#2 I do not think it is possible to forge full headers and have no headers of the
real service one is using not appear. The documentation I provide of Dan
Roger's posts supply the full headers, with nothing unusual about them.
Furthermore, by looking at the deja archive record, these exact same posts
with exactly the same identifying headers may be found. Also: I provide the full
posted document as evidence each time, providing full headers and omitting
nothing. I never abridge any post without making that clear and in all or
virtually all cases provide the entire post just as it was. Again, this is verifiable.
The match with the deja.com archive record would be perfect.
#3 The fact that every single post I have submitted as evidence against Dr. Dan
Rogers came out of Frontiernet, Ft. Dodge, IA is likely absolutely verifiable
if that service provider was contacted.
It would not be reasonable to believe any such claim of forgeries which may be made
by Dan Rogers in his defense against the charges I have made against him. The posts
are him, all him, with no exaggeration, elaboration, or misrepresentation of the posts
by me. If he makes any such claim the only reasonable thing to believe is that he is
lying to your Ethics Board.
******
AND
In the post quoted below in full, Dan Rogers is obviously making it clear he is
in fact referring to me. He makes a most outrageous accusation which I quote in
an excerpt directly below (follow-up posters understood it as an accusation
against me and took Dan's accusation as a statement about something that had
actually happened). Here is this most disturbing part of his post (a groundless,
false accusation or insinuation -- taken or represented by his friend ("Kali" )
as a fact in a subsequent post (more disgusting and unbecoming tag-team behavior).
Dan says:
"Maybe even park down the street from my house, unaware that
you were parked next to a magistrate's house and that everybody
knew who you were"
Notice that he used the word "were" twice in that sentence, indicating he was
making a claim that this event has happened. This is a false, groundless,
baseless, and grossly
inappropriate charge for Dr. Rogers, moderator of
sci.psychology.psychotherapy.moderated to make in sci.psychology.psychotherapy.
Again, it is absolutely false. I am from Iowa, but have not been in or around Fort
Dodge for well over a decade (maybe two).
From: "Dan & Camille Rogers" <dlrogers@frontiernet.net>
Newsgroups: sci.psychology.psychotherapy
Subject: Re: Who will Pay a Price
Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2000 10:52:33 -0600
Organization: Frontier GlobalCenter Inc.
Lines: 41
Message-ID: <8biqv0$6ueq$1@node17.cwnet.frontiernet.net>
References: <200003251508.KAA27450@cotse.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.130.184.154
X-Trace: node17.cwnet.frontiernet.net 954003232 227802 209.130.184.154 (25 Mar 2000 16:53:52 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@frontiernet.net
NNTP-Posting-Date: 25 Mar 2000 16:53:52 GMT
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600
Xref: news sci.psychology.psychotherapy:97311
You are obviously a kook. You keep copying the ancient posts
by "brad," who claimed to be a consumer advocate. Since you
refer to "brad" in the third person, you must be somebody different.
Besides, you said that you are filing your "second formal complaint"
to a professional organization, and that other person has said that he
filed more than that. So, I am willing to address you as somebody else.
And since you are totally anonymous, then nobody can actually
be attacking you.
So what are you, "Anon," going to complain about? That people
have called you a plagiarist? That people have treated you as
a kook?
Are you gonna do something really stupid, like stalk somebody?
Maybe even park down the street from my house, unaware that
you were parked next to a magistrate's house and that everybody
knew who you were?
Are you going to start posting vulgar material to newsgroups, forging
it as originating from other people, like me? Are you going to go to
local libraries in the towns where other people live and forging posts
from those people?
Nothing like
this was EVER done by Brad.:
******
Dan Rogers STALKS.
Here Dan Rogers posts to an entirely irrelevant newsgroups
(the unm.general or Unirsity of Minnesota, general
newsgroup) in an effort to embarass Brad with the university
system for which Brad works. This is completely off-topic and
done only for the purpose of malice.
From: "Dan Rogers" <dlrogers@frontiernet.net>
Newsgroups: umn.general, alt.usenet.kooks
Subject: Re: (brad) nee wins the Bobo!!
Date: 13 Sep 1998 16:30:56 GMT
Organization: Dan Rogers
Lines: 20
Message-ID: <6tgs00$1f2g$1@node17.cwnet.frontiernet.net>
References: <6ssmoa$12q6$1@node17.cwnet.frontiernet.net>
<good_brad-0809961217120001@ts001d41.min-mn.concentric.net>
<35fdc778.29594214@news.erols.com>
<good_brad-0809962128310001@ts009d13.min-mn.concentric.net
> <6tekr1$9fg$1@node17.cwnet.frontiernet.net>
<yfRK1.1258$E9.4534111@ptah.visi.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: as5200-2-5.ftd.ia.frontiernet.net
X-Complaints-To: abuse@frontiernet.net
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2110.0
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Xref: news alt.usenet.kooks:107359 umn.general:71
jeremy@please don't spam me .wavefront .com wrote in message ...
>In sci.psychology.psychotherapy Dan Rogers <dlrogers@frontiernet.net>
wrote:
>: How did you guys in Minnesota allow yourself to become possessed
>: by such a spirit as bradnee?
>
>Usually, we rely on the weather to keep the riff-raff out,
>but in this case it didn't work.
>
>Maybe a tornado will snag his trailer home one of these days...
Oh, man!! Can you imagine the number of paper grocery sacks
that would be spread all about?
---
(end quote) This is the second time Rogers posted
to unm.general
******
MORE STALKING
Here is Dan Rogers posting to umn.general to try to ruin
Brad. Is not this malice with intent to do harm something
of concern for those who are supposed to protect the
public from wrongful action by psychologists? Well, here
AGAIN is wrongful PUBLIC behavior with intent to harm
(and likely harmful indeed. This is neither the first
or only occurance of THIS particular behavior. ONLY
the psychologists in sppm and spp and their pals have
stooped to such stalking and harassment. Brad has NEVER done
such. PLUS, they complained about web sites against them,
that just cited there actual newsgroup posts, like I am doing
WHILE AT THE SAME TIME APPLAUDED THE WEB PAGE EFFORTS OF
NEWSGROUP HOODS. (The particular newsgroup hood, mentioned
by Rogers below, was actually and acknowledged pal
of Dr. Leslie Packer's).
From: "Dan Rogers" <dlrogers@frontiernet.net>
Newsgroups: alt.usenet.kooks, umn.general
Subject: Re: As Promised... Brad Site
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 1998 21:51:53 -0600
Organization: Dan Rogers
Lines: 12
Message-ID: <73qgej$k2g$1@node17.cwnet.frontiernet.net>
References: <199811272318.AAA09354@replay.com>
<73pogu$f6t$1@camel21.mindspring.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: as5200-2-33.ftd.ia.frontiernet.net
X-Complaints-To: abuse@frontiernet.net
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3
Xref: news umn.general:92 alt.usenet.kooks:117080
Great! A true public service.
Cipher wrote in message <73pogu$f6t$1@camel21.mindspring.com>...
>In article <73pnlh$dsp$1@camel21.mindspring.com> Cipher,
>cipher@mindspring.com writes:
>>I'm going to mirror this
>>puppy!
>
>http://www.mindspring.com/~cipher/bradsite/brad.html
******
*****
Rogers has Recently Once Again NOT ONLY Intentionally Engaged in Lying about
the state of his field, but has maliciously knowingly engaged in statements that
anyone
can see as malicious defamation with desire to do harm. He has recently
made a post
that made a dozen false claims and accusations, most or ALL of which he
KNOWS are false
he yet makes INTENTIONALLY, again, TO
DO MALICIOUS HURTFUL DEFAMATION.
This matter is being dealt with by the proper authorities presently, so the
details will
not yet be presented.
Links to the history of past posts that were the basis of a past Formal
Complaint to
'Dr." Rogers Licensing Board will be present (any current Complaints will
not be
discussed at this time.
ALSO see the web page on co-sppm moderator, John Price, Ph.D. -- a harasser, abuser, and stalker
ALSO, since 'Dr." Dan Rogers (sppm moderator) has even recently encouraged people to go
look
at the "Brad FAQ"on "Taylor's"/Sanford's web site, it is appropriate to provide a link
to my information
page on "Taylor Jimenez"/Sanford Wallace
(Rogers has encouraged people to visit that site after it has become clear what a vicious hoodlum
"Taylor" (not his real name) is.)
PLUS: Dan Rogers' is a Snake Oil Salesman
|