Illustrating the "self-protective" (act., pathologically DEFENSIVE) type
of improprieties clinical psychologists too often seem TO USE to defend
their "status" and position and protect the positive myths that surround
them (and that they promulgate on no good basis), AND that they use to
"protect" themselves AGAINST facts and gaps in data that they do not want
to address:  Censorship has been occurring on a supposedly unmoderated
**open** CLINICAL-PSYCHOLOGISTS mailing list !!  (Again, UNLIKE the
response of science people, the response to hard questions, put in good
faith, seems to be MORE in accord with the "motto",  "the best offense is a
defense".)
   Without, warning, any communication, any notice, or any good cause the
listowner, Joseph Plaud, of the CLINICAL-PSYCHOLOGISTS mailing list has
engaged in censorship *and banning* MULTIPLE TIMES.  This on spite of no
improprieties EXCEPT HOLDING THE WRONG VIEWS.  All this in direct defiance
of the group's charter.
   To my knowledge I, Brad Jesness,  was the first victim of this several
months ago.  Joe Plaud, listowner, without any indication he would do so,
and without reason or warning (or even any notice), began to censor my
posts on this *open* mailing list, WHERE NO ONE (supposedly) is censored.
AND, he did this entirely without protocol.   He then soon banned me, so I
could no longer read the posts of others and what he and others were saying
about me behind my back.   He did this while leaving a recent statement
that the list was completely open, unalterred. (It is true he eventually --
within in a few weeks' time -- announced what he had done in my instance,
though he told lies in order to make a plausible "explanation".  I do not
believe the charter has ever been changed.)  Now, AGAIN, all this occurred
on an OPEN, unmoderated mailing list (ON a list that is *OPEN* according to
its charter).  EVEN MORE IMPORTANT:  The posts I made I felt were all
appropriate and on-topic.  They all reflected my honest and sincere views
and typically contained clear argument and often contained principles and
data.  No offensive language was expressed against any particular person
and no vulgarities at all.  There  were no gratuitus attacks whatsoever in
my posts; no statements were made that could not be supported.   All my
posts were made in good faith.  My last e-mail with Plaud (before the
censorship and before banning me) gave no hint of any censorship or any
hint of the banning that was soon to follow.  On being censored, I can only
conclude that it was because of my VIEWS, pure and simple !!!!
     ***WHY HAVEN'T YOU HEARD OF THIS BEFORE ???***   Simple !:  It is NOT
because people are too kind to me to mention it (you darn well know that is
not the case, esp. when it comes to ME !!!)   It is because, very simply, I
AM IN THE RIGHT.  THERE IS ** NO EVIDENCE** WHATSOEVER AGAINST ME (none
that could be presented by anyone, including Plaud).  The "therapists"
simply censored and then excluded me because they didn't like my views (I
say "therapists" (plural) because the unjustified and unethical action, by
Joe Plaud, was supported by a number of "therapists" who simply wanted to
be "left ALONE" -- just like what they NOW want NEEDLESSLY and for no good
justification, with THEIR OWN CENSORED (oh, I mean, "moderated") newsgroup
!!!!)
  You might want to know why I am bring the Joe Plaud issue up here and
now.  Well, one reason is to help disply the "true colors," but also **ONCE
AGAIN** with no notice or warning and on no basis, Joe AGAIN has engaged in
censorship and banning.  Again, this was done with no warning and for no
apparent reason other than objection to certain views.  He did not inform
the group at all this time (TO MY KNOWLEDGE).  Newcomers to the
CLINICAL-PSYCHOLOGISTS mailing list have no reason to believe it is not
**OPEN**, though it is not.  (Also, old members know of only one case of
banning, and this is if they have paid close attention.  There have been at
least a couple.  The charter still claims it is an open group, I believe.)