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.
>>> 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"
insight.rr.com>
>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>Caitriona Mac Fhiodhbhuidhe wrote:
>>>> Raving Loonie wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> 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 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
