Ex-Gay Watch

David, I’d love to hear more about what you know of my so called, “compatriots”. I’m so sure, there are so many from the “movement” that trust you. “Yea, let’s talk with David, so he can turn around and put me next on XGW! Let’s start a conspiracy against Jim Phelan, let’s all talk behind his back, we are jealous, we hate his power! That man, who does he think he is (and so on). Darn Christian who curses like a sailor and likes Ann Coulter.” As, the lady in Misery says, “That dirty birdy”.

Or, maybe, you are right, maybe there are some legit in your scoop. Never the less, the pansy ones that like to butter and cream you, maybe, the ones needing alibis. I might be inclined to think there are maybe one or two of them. But, that’s a stretch. The ones who you have as your fear factor experiments. So, you know the in’s and out’s and daily schedules of Alan C, and that he has “urgent” matters? oMg! I guess most stalkers would know these things? Now I know this place is wack.

“G” if you were a real researcher and produced a true random sampled study to prove that people “cannot CHANGE the sexual orientation that they were born with. It is biological like eye color or height,” then maybe people might listen to you. Otherwise, talk to the hand.

Does that dripping sound mean the meltdown is complete?

Does that dripping sound mean the meltdown is complete?

Nearly, Timothy — we’re still waiting on the “meep meep”.

Then we’ll know we’re done.

I’ve always wondered how the ex-gays explain homosexuality in nature. It is a well documented fact that some animals, whose DNA code is not different in nature than ours, are exclusively homosexual in their behavior – such as the famous 8% or so of rams. Are these rams exclusively homosexual because their daddy rams didn’t spend enough time with them, because their mommy ewes were domineering, because the other sheep teased them, because they chose the behavior, or is it because they were born homosexual? I’m really curious to know if they think it is inborn or not for the animals who are exclusively homosexual in their behavior. Perhaps Jim would be gracious enough to shed light on the matter for me. Thanks in advance.

Now I know this place is wack.

Lordy…

**“G” if you were a real researcher and produced a true random sampled study to prove that people “cannot CHANGE the sexual orientation**

Firstly, you should have learned in, oh say, Junior High that science cannot be used to prove a negative.

For example, I cannot prove there is no God. However there is no concrete evidence of his(or her) existence. There is a lot of circumstantial and anecdotal “evidence” but nothing that stands up to scrutiny. Does this mean there is no God? No, it means exactly what I said to begin with, there is no concrete evidence.

The prevailing research on ex-gays shows a lack of evidence that reparative therapy works. The recent Jones and Yarhouse study shows that 11 people out of 98 can be considered a success if you redefine success to the point where it no longer resembles the common meaning of the word. If you consider a lessening (but not an end) to homosexual thoughts and desires, and an apparent increase in heterosexual “functioning” and or desires, then yes these people can be considered a success.

However, that’s not what most people would consider a success. For example, I have successfully quit drinking and successfully quit smoking. I say this because it has been 3 years since I’ve done either. It has been more than 2 years since I’ve had anything resembling a craving. I can use mouthwash with alcohol in it with no problem. I can be in a bar, and date a smoker with no problems whatsoever. This is how I judge success in any sort of “addiction”.

Now if homosexuality can be compared to an addiction, then A) there must be those who can be “moderate homosexuals” just as there are social smokers and occasional drinkers. B) If homosexuality is an addiction, then like my cravings for alcohol and cigarettes, the gay thoughts and feelings should stop within months of “quiting” homosexuality.

Since no one has produced one person, let alone a significant group of people, who have completely stopped having any homosexual thoughts or desires, and have replaced those with exclusive, passionate heterosexual thoughts and desires (as opposed to celibacy) then I’m sorry, there seem to be no success stories whatsoever.

Does this mean that change can’t happen? No, science can’t prove a negative. But someone loosing their homosexuality is a lot like me waking up tomorrow as a hamster — neither is impossible, but they are both not very likely.

Awesome, G.

Nearly, Timothy — we’re still waiting on the “meep meep”.

you made me laugh out loud. I’d almost forgotten about DL.

Jim Phelan said:

So, you know the in’s and out’s and daily schedules of Alan C, and that he has “urgent” matters? oMg! I guess most stalkers would know these things? Now I know this place is wack.

Paranoia, too? You got the deluxe neurosis pack, didn’t you. It’s called an autoresponder, Jim. We email to check some facts, and, if he’s away, it replies with a message about him being out of contact. He also has an assistant who would probably even tell you when he is too busy with urgent issues to talk.

Actually, there are precious few who won’t at least respond to our verification of this or that. PFOX is one of those who never responds to anything. If we really press, they will end up on an obscure web audio with Matt Barber where they don’t have to respond with any legitimacy, but most ex-gay organizations will at least talk with us.

Yes, David; and your use of the term “neurosis”, Freud would be proud. And hence “deluxe pack”, a big cigar for sure. Again, thanks for the compliments; I can always rely on XGW for them.

Nick, everyone’s DNA (animals, included) is different. We can not compare rams with humans. In case you didn’t notice, they are alot different from us! Yes, homosexual behavior exists in the animal kingdom, but not exclusively and not under normal situations. For more information please read my article “Deviated copulation among animals,” Journal of Evolutionary Psychology, Vol. 19, No. 1-2, pgs. 41-49, March, 1998.

Jason, so in the absence of “proof” people believe in evidence. But you say, there is no evidence, or concrete evidence, in God. I wonder why so many people believe in God, then?

This type of discussion could go on and on, especially when you throw the God factor in!

I have to agree with John we are off, have gotten way off, the real issue and the real issue is this, germane to this post: Exodus, rather Alan Chambers himself, temporarily suspended me from the referral list until we can convene a conference about the matter. This was his personal decision, not the board’s. That’s why my name is not there. JONAH, NARTH, and IHF will not take such action. We already talked about the matter. As for TC and Karen Booth, I resigned from that board. So, yes, lets turn off the “drip”. I’m taking Caryn’s advice and taking some time off. Happy Thanksgiving.

Jim, I appreciate your response. Basically you explain it by denying it. I’ll try to see if I can find a copy of your article.

(I think you misunderstood what I said – I said the DNA is not different in nature, as in all DNA is made up of sequences of A, T, C and G. I did not say that all DNA is identical in the sense of everything has the same DNA base at the same location).

Homosexuality is not an addiction – it is a sexual orientation just like heterosexuality.

You may be confusing sex addiction with sexual orientation. There are MANY heterosexual sex addicts – they frequent stip clubs, spend all their money on prostitutes, etc.

Jim,

There is a mountain of scientifc evidence that sexual orientation is biological.

Compare these researchers to NARTH – which is full of discredited “scientists” whose religious beliefs drive their research.

Its called intellectual dishonesty and again – it is evil. Why? because it is lies masquerading as truth.

Jim Phelan said:

Exodus, rather Alan Chambers himself, temporarily suspended me from the referral list until we can convene a conference about the matter. This was his personal decision, not the board’s. That’s why my name is not there.

Just to keep this factual, we have no information from Exodus on this yet. This is Jim’s claim. It’s not exactly out of the ordinary, however, for a CEO or President to take immediate action when necessary, such as removing someone doing and saying things of debatable character from a referral list. Then the matter can be taken up during regular board discussions.

The truth is we only know that Phelan was on the list before the incident, and he is not there now. As for JONAH and IHF, well I think we know how few take them seriously. Their inaction concerning this only helps emphasize their problems.

It looks to me like the ex-gay movement may be going through a division.

On one side is the crowd that wants to be taken seriously and is willing to try and live up to some standards of honesty and appropriate behavior. While I may be critical of them or questions their claims, I don’t think they are, well, of diminished mental capacity.

And then there are the slavery loving, holocaust revisionist, pillow beating, cuddle treatment proposing, anti-education, jogger kicking, wackjobs. Sadly these, umm, more colorful ex-gay leaders are in love with the limelight.

Nick, everyone’s DNA (animals, included) is different. We can not compare rams with humans. In case you didn’t notice, they are alot different from us!

Awww, that’s adorable. Let’s just deny basic, well-established science in favor of assertions pulled out of our a*s.

Yes, homosexual behavior exists in the animal kingdom, but not exclusively and not under normal situations.

Well, actually, exclusive same-sex behavior occurs in normal situations (all observed environments) in a fairly stable percentage of rams.

We can not compare rams with humans.

OK. But that doesn’t mean that your first statement was just plain old wrong.

But it will be a cold day in Hell before Jim admits that ANYTHING he said was wrong.

Timothy: please consider the ‘sin of Edom’ in the book of Obadiah. Simply put, Edom allowed no one to escape. There was no way out of a God-given judgment, except death… thanks to Edom.

There are times when the anti-GLBT move to beat down a pro-GLBT argument… and they go beyond debate and dialog, to scorn.

I offer that our example is Christ, not Edom… . Our example was a ‘son of man’ that knew the fury of argument, that felt the adrenaline in his veins, that spoke the truth plainly, and yet blessed when cursed with words or given scorn.

You are a skilled writer. You have done a marvelous job of making assertions and defending them. I ask you to consider as Paul says, ‘God gave you the authority to build up, not to tear down.’

Respectfully; Caryn

Caryn,

Please forgive me for being dense today. It’s the Wednesday before Thanksgiving and perhaps my mind is on Turkey.

But what exactly are you saying here? That I am being to harsh with Jim?

Speaking of Thanksgiving:

I get introspective at this time of year. I have some family and friends who I appreciate are a part of my life and I will be sitting down with some of them tomorrow. Then, I plan to reacquaint myself with friends through the cross-cultural, and time-honored ritual of holiday greeting cards.

I see a lot of cards with the word JOY as part of the message. After many years, I think now I understand the meaning of JOY. It only comes from within.

So…to everyone here…and I mean everyone (gay, recovering gay, ex-gay, ex-ex gay and even those who I might consider the burr-under-the-saddle types): may you have peace. Peace and solace, at least, during this holiday season of cheer and goodwill.

Caryn,

Hmmm: but among many things said… there was also a moment when a wild-eyed Jew went to the temple and started kicking over tables. If memory serves.

Saul said a lot of things. Much of it “debatable”. Some, down-right ripe for rejection. You’ll need to make a bit more effort than simply quoting him. How does this apply, here?

I think, also respectfully, it may help if you simply said what was on your mind; rather than speaking through riddles. (the clue is that Timothy has had to ask what you meant). If there was a specific thing said — or even simply implied — I’m sure you’d be quite welcome to object or question. Timothy’s more than fair like that, in our experience.

James Phelan is a concern. He is making a career out of tearing people down, and seems to delight in attempting to do so.

I’m unfussed if his table gets overturned. High time: he’s a menace.

Where’s a wild-eyed Jew when you need one?

Timothy: I offer that you’ve given Jim P. no way to escape. You won the discussion long ago. As an outsider watching the ring, I think it’s time to throw in the towel – not because you are wrong, but the dialog became a debate, the debate became a fight, and the fight became far too bloody.

I am concerned that readers are watching for a strong dialog, and perhaps a hard debate… let’s call it ‘boxing’. It opens our mind to understanding arguments and assertions, evidence and logic. I may not like all of it, but then, others do like it. And I normally join the dialog, work a bit of debate, but hold my peace and then stay out of it, as it grows far rougher.

In my opinion, this thread was no longer boxing. It’s become savage. It’s blood and ultimate fighting. And the readers are learning that GLBT are as savage as they…. perhaps even more so…. when do we stop?

Jim P. lost the boxing match, but is showing that we are as savage as he… . I now consider the PR battle a ‘draw’.

XGW offered to ‘broker a dialog’, as I recall. Sorry, but this is not a dialog, in my opinion.

But then again, this is your fight. I’ll leave this thread alone. Caryn

Well, I feel sorry for these men… how low they go and how much they hate themselves. Feeling like they were born in a society that didn’t love them, that they felt they had to be tough and physical to feel loved.

Guys (Mr. Phelan in particular), when will you wake up and learn that none of that doesn’t really matter? That no matter how hard you throw a football, the pain somehow is still there….you can’t just lift the homophobia away no matter how strong you are. It isn’t your fault. Maybe the problem has to do with them and not you? Maybe you can learn to love yourselves, and stop all this nonsense.

I don’t care how tough you are physically, so why should you? Btw, you are obviously in denial. No straight guy ever says ‘sweat with me’ when talking to other guys. Please stop this nonsense. It’s just embarrassing! It doesn’t matter if you like sports, or if you’re into theater, or both. What does that have to do with your sexual orientation anyway? And if gay men are softer and more sensitive, so f*****g what? Those are excellent qualities. Why should we care? I know I don’t. Being a good person means being above all that s**t.

Self-confidence really does look good on anyone. You should try it! The reactions you have toward gay men aren’t what straight men think about us (although you really do think otherwise I know *chortle), but what gay men deep in the closet think. Please get help and come out! Think about all the young gay boys you will be saving by being brave. I do not want any more of our kind to kill themselves. Thank you.

~signed, Larry Kramer fan

Caryn said:

Jim P. lost the boxing match, but is showing that we are as savage as he… . I now consider the PR battle a ‘draw’.

XGW offered to ‘broker a dialog’, as I recall. Sorry, but this is not a dialog, in my opinion.

Some think we over moderate, you think we under moderate. With all due respect, you must be using a very, very low threshold of “savagery” if you think anything in this thread deserves that descriptor.

Jim wrote:

Exodus, rather Alan Chambers himself, temporarily suspended me from the referral list until we can convene a conference about the matter

According the NARTH conference schedule, both Alan Chambers and Jim Phelan were at the Marriott Dallas Fort Worth Airport on Friday October 26, 2007 at 145pm. http://www.narth.com/docs/2007confsched_rev.pdf
I wonder why a conference couldn’t be convened at that time since they were both in the same building rather than one being in Ohio and the other in Florida.

Or perhaps one or both sides weren’t particularly enthusiastic to “convene a conference” after the testy exchange between Jim Phelan, Randy Thomas and Alan Chambers in the comments section of Jim’s blog.
http://jimphelan.vox.com/library/post/i-was-physically-attacked-for-speaking-out-against-gays.html#comments

Somewhere up there in all this craziness Jim said:

I am comfortable in saying that heterosexuals are far, far, FAR less likely to consistently use a condom than are gay people.” True, why should they, when indeed they go on to maintain greater monogamy, safety, and cleaner sex.

Have you ever actually been a heterosexual male? If so, you would know for certain how utterly ridiculous this statement is, Jim. Good Grief. Or, if you’d ever been a 44 yr.old divorced woman with a MySpace page you’d get a taste of how ridiculous this sounds as well. I have a great deal of anectdotal evidence which suggest that all men are pigs….gay or straight. (lol)

Awww, that’s adorable. Let’s just deny basic, well-established science in favor of assertions pulled out of our a*s.

Welcome to the land of creationism.

There are plenty of issues concerning Phelan in this thread, some more on topic than others, but we have no idea if he is or is not a Creationist, nor is it really relevant here. Let’s try to remember the topic.

Makes me crazy. So much negative energy. If boys want to have sex with other boys, then let them do that. If boys feel emotional connections to men instead of women, then let them do that. Who’s being affected? If you belong to a religion that doesn’t agree with homosexuality, then YOU’RE the only person who has to answer to YOUR God. So then don’t YOU do it.

Ben, it’s hard to tell from your mixed usage if you are using “boys” to mean minors. Just in case, let me clarify that nothing on this site is to be construed as supporting sexual relationships between minors and adults of any gender or orientation, as we do not.

If you were simply using boys and men interchangeably with the more generic meaning “male” then just consider this a clarification for readers.

With all due respect to everyone here, it is evident that each and every one of you may have suffered from sexual abuse on one level or another. From whatever court the thought form that squeezed you hard is hailing from, it’s effects are blazingly strong. As long as you don’t discuss your true pain and resolve it, this mini projectile missile factory will continue to brew strong poison.
There is no “bridge”with fear. Fear is not interested in bridges. Fear is only ONLY interested in separation. If everyone stays separate, then confusion rules, and evil wins. Exgay ministries use Biblical fear militia to fire at gay people. If gay people fire back it’s because at some level they may have a belief that the Bible just might be right, a very hollow yet verifiable fact. If you resolve your own inner problems with your possible sexual /boundary abuse, you may not be attracted to this type of communication ever again, because, it does not dominate your inner dialogue, any more.

You are all being the pain, exgays and gays alike, stirring the pot of your combined sexual abuse striations in your individual selves. It will drive you mad with contempt for self and others, if not resolved.

One truth is, gay straight bi, are all neutral, they exist here, always have and always will. The next truth is, it’s your opinion about these neutral things that is your surface problem, Biblical saying or not, it’s an opinion. My best friend Mike says all the time, “opinions are like a******s, everybody’s got one”. Yes and so did the men have opinions who wrote stories in the Bible. New flash, God lov’em they were men. Evolved beings do not “channel” fear through psychic men as a major proponenent to live by. The Bible got hammered with some very dark doors hinged on inaccurate inferences best being dismissed as error. Sex is one of those doors.

So you may want to stop the missile defense, on both sides, you’re hurting yourselves for no reason. You’re “acting out”. You are having opinions about something that you cannot change, ever. You can throw red dye on brown hair, as it will in the end be brown. The third truth is your all hurt birds wanting resolve in one way or another. You will never get it by throwing stones, nor will you get it by denying your inherant sexual matrix. You only get resolve by repairing your matrix, of which you have several. I have never seen anyone evolve through hating a part of the self. It doesn’t happen. Acceptance is the only way out as it leads to understanding. Without it you’re toast, kinda like the burnt walls on the surface of this blog.

Self investigation and resolution is one tough tough journey, but if you truly want happiness, instead of war, then it is a path you must take, preferably with a therapist that has resolve, soas to lead you well. If you like, ask your Gods to direct you to one, something may just happen that would be noteworthy and awe inspiring. You are all so beautiful, beyond your rage.

ChakTah

The worst abuse is that of the tortured analogies you are using. Try to keep the language clean at least so we can stay out of the corporate filters and maintain out work-safe status. The less evolved thank you

From one less evolved to another…..thanks David!

I trust you all had a relaxing T-Day, like I, but I see many were on here, talking (gobbling) more about me (and other stuff[ing]). I am so thankful, though.

Nick, Thanks for your clarification, however, there really is no real discussion here, because science has not found a marker for homosexuality in DNA that provides conclusive evidence. I am very familiar with the infamous studies by the team of J. Michael Bailey and Richard Pillard; and the Hamer study. And although an interesting topic of debate, no one theory or experiment leads to a definitive answer. “Some” believe that the characters found on Xq28 are the elusive “gay gene”, but many other scientists do not. There are too many problems in the research and methodology to say for sure. Others may place stock in other theories. Some feel that perhaps there is no one answer, that sexual orientation, whether homosexual or heterosexual; gay, straight, lesbian, or bisexual, all are a cause of a complex interaction between environmental, cognitive, and anatomical factors, shaping the individual at an early age.

So to address “G”, while there may be “mountain of scientific [sic] evidence” (rather he should say, a small hill), such evidence is not, conclusive or convincing in any one sense. What we do find is that whatever evidence we do have; we use to justify our own biases. I am guilty of this to some degree; I would hope you’d be as honest and say the same for yourselves. I think the important thing to do is to stick with the facts, and facts have it that we have some evidence for all kinds of explanations for homosexuality. I prefer the psychoanalytic triangular theory. Drs Fisher and Greenberg out of Syracuse University

found much evidence in the literature to support this. (AND, NO these are not NARTH people!). As for women, the unresolved oedipal complex is also a factor, however other factors could be an influence, such as sexual abuse. Her aim in homosexuality is to disregard the male figure and take on a female figure, one who will substitute mother (or be safe-like, like mother) and will provide a refuge from men.

Pam, regardless of one’s orientation (for ex. I could care a less about yours or anyone else’s’ on here, because I can dialogue with people and not make that an issue) they can look at research and say without a doubt that their is enough evidence in study to show that, AS A SUBGROUP, those that define themselves as heterosexual, report more monogamy in their relationship when compared to gay SUBGROUPS. Now, are there individuals in each group with EXCEPTIONS, Yes, sure there are. I am sure there are insatiable straight 44 year old women who want sex with every man they can find. If you find one, please give her my number, BTW! LOL

Pam, please stop judging people by your cyber views, and generalizations (i.e. “all men are pigs”). I mean, come on, do we really take your anecdotal “44 yr.old divorced woman with a MySpace page” to so-called “get a taste” to be any representation of the real world? Maybe you should have been doing something else on Thanksgiving? No reply nec. just think about it.

Now on to John: John, before you jump to conclusions, please check the facts. If you would have, you would have know that Alan Chambers, while on the 2007 NARTH conference agenda, did not attend. He had to cancel, but he did sent a rep. from a local Exodus ministry. Even if he had been there, that would not have ensured we would have had the time to convene anyway, given our tight schedules, press inerviews, research, round tables, meetings, and other business we conduct at this annual conference.

Jim Phelan said:

I am sure there are insatiable straight 44 year old women who want sex with every man they can find. If you find one, please give her my number, BTW! LOL

You chastise Pam for her “all men are pigs” comment (one I’m fairly certain was made tongue in cheek) and go on to prove it in the very next breath.

Let’s keep the comments on topic and a bit more concise, ok?

Jim, thanks again for your reply. I know that many of our biological traits are the result of both genetics and the environment (especially prenatal). I look at the twin studies and genetic studies much the same way I do fingerprints. We know fingerprints are inborn and partly genetic, yet identical twins do not have identical fingerprints. Any genetic search that requires 100% similarities in one particular gene controlling fingerprints is doomed to failure. Unfortunately, this is the “proof” some people require for homosexuality – it will never happen. Instead, I look to see what the twin patterns are (regardless of the actual frequencies) and what the genetic tendencies are, especially since many traits are controlled by more than one gene. The various studies I’ve read are very consistent with the neurohormonal theory – a theory that makes a lot of sense to me in that it helps explain the exclusive homosexuality that is found in nature and in humans.

It doesn’t escape me that people who hold the prenatal causes to strict standards ignore those same standards when discussing postnatal causes. From what I understand the APA indicates no postnatal factor has been found to demonstrate homosexuality is not inborn. There are gay men, such as myself, who had an average relationship with the father and who were never sexually abused. I sometimes wonder how much of the problem is because of education: I notice that creation science proponents often have PhDs from non-accredited institutions (or their accredited PhD is in a completely unrelated field) – the same seems to be true for some of those I see involved in ex-gay arguments, their PhDs are not from accredited institutions. This might not matter to some people but to me it is a consideration, especially when trying to understand their views and approaches to difficult issues.

Ah, yes, the loony end of a post string….

Pam: we, unlike Jim, saw the “lol”. Given his woeful “research” talent, he probably doesn’t know that you have a few boys that you adore with all your heart and would defend with your life. He’s an idiot, ignore him. And all men ARE pigs, btw… that’s what you chicks love about us, right?…

ChakTah: any “sexual abuse” was as an adult and mutually agreed upon with monogamous husband. It was kind of nice, actually. But I wasn’t sure, so I’ve asked for a repeat performance. More than once, over the years. Probably the only thing that’s kept us together. ***

*** delivered with double dose of Australian sarcasm, which is twice normal strength to begin with.

David, my comment was tongue and cheek as I realize Pam’s was, too. No harm intended.

Nick, I’m not sure if, as you noticed, “that creation science proponents often have PhDs from non-accredited institutions (or their accredited PhD is in a completely unrelated field) – the same seems to be true for some of those…involved in ex-gay arguments, their PhDs are not from accredited institutions” is accurate. Maybe you are right, I don’t know. Have you ever done a survey, or know of one done?

BTW, what institution is your Ph.D from?

Excuse me Jim, but isn’t your “PhD” from the “Southern California University for Professional Studies”? A “PhD” that isn’t recognsed as such, for practice?

You got your PhD in psychology via post, right? Without any prior formal psychology training. Does anyone ever fail that “doctorate” so long as they keep sending the cheques?

And you paid to publish your “papers” in vanity journals, right?

Who are you to question people’s credentials.

Grantdale, relax, I asked to see what educational level he had given we are talking about research and he said he felt things like that were important for him in consideration, especially when trying to understand views and approaches to difficult issues.

As for me, my terminal degree, is a Masters in Social Work (MSW). This is the degree at which I am licensed and board certified, and allows me to practice psychotherapy and research. As for my Psy.D, I earned that to continue my education, specifically in psychology because the social work program lacked psychology in its curriculum. Yes, this was earned through an external degree program. Most MSW’s do not go on to gain as much continued education, but I am an exception. So, to be honest, your point is invalid. Not that you had one in the first place, nor did I need to explain again since this has been covered in previous posts.

Secondly, I see you are talking about my article that was published in Psychological Reports, of which you refer to as a “vanity” publication. The research itself has strong integrity, as it was done for my Masters thesis, through an accredited school, and was supervised under strict academic standards. I did not have to have this published, I could have left it unpublished, but I chose to make it accessible. Psychological Reports, although the author assumes production cost, is still under peer review, the same standards as all professional publications, and is listed under the APA’s listing of recognized professional journals in PsycINFO http://www.apa.org/psycinfo/.

BTW: Not all my articles are in Psychological Reports, I have a variety of sources of which have published my works, yes even the APA!

Oh pfftt. What do you take us for Jim? We both check these things for a living.

We’re well aware what your “PhD” means, and we’re well aware of the academic integrity of all the places you’ve “published”. What we wanted to see was whether you’d be brutally honest. (A: obviously not.) Sorry if our posing it as questions caused you to be confused.

Vanity PhD and vanity papers; available to anyone prepared to fork over with the ready.

ps: we also have a barrel of snake-oil for sale. Interested? Or have enough already?

Mr Phelan — It looks like you are taking quite a skewering at your personal blog jimphelan.vox.com. With comments referring to “Jim Phelan’s incitement of a physical and/or verbal attack on a gay group, and an attack on a man, presumably, a gay man” zinging your ears, it must cause you to take stock. How did you vocalize your comment to cause someone such angst, so as to physically shove you? People usually don’t go to such lengths unless intensely provoked. And out of many groups supporting the marathon, why did you single out a gay group to verbally “attack” moving forward to physically maiming a man, potentially causing serious physical injury? What have you learned from all this hooplah you’ve ignited?
This is your 15 minutes of fame.
Any regrets?

Devlin Bach

Yes, Devlin, “hooplah”, indeed! “This is your 15 minutes of fame.” Sounds like something a cheap prostitute (or presidential intern) would say. Did you learn that from Bill Clinton? BTW: What’s the difference between a puppy and a liberal? A: Puppies stop whinning after they grow up.

Oh, you said, “why did [I] single out a gay group to verbally ‘attack’..” Well, I was looking for the liberals’ group, but failed to see any group standing around burning the American Flag! I didn’t see the KKK, either, I’m sure I would have noticed them standing around in those white sheets! Nope, didn’t see em’, sorry.

Yes, grantdale, penty of oil for me. God have mercy.

You say, “We’re well aware what your “PhD” means….” Apparently, you aren’t too AWARE, because it’s not a PhD, it’s a PsyD.

“Brutally honest” Come on, if anything, I’ve been that for God’s sake.

BTW: Who is “we”????

Yes, Devlin, “hooplah”, indeed! “This is your 15 minutes of fame.” Sounds like something a cheap prostitute (or presidential intern) would say. Did you learn that from Bill Clinton? BTW: What’s the difference between a puppy and a liberal? A: Puppies stop whinning after they grow up.

Oh, you said, “why did [I] single out a gay group to verbally ‘attack’..” Well, I was looking for the liberals’ group, but failed to see any group standing around burning the American Flag!

Alright Jim, I’ve tried to treat you like an adult with gentle hints about your inappropriate comments, but you keep right on going. It’s time to rein it in. We don’t allow juvenile smears like this so consider this your first warning. This is not your personal blog; stick with the topic and remain civil toward others if you want to continue commenting here.

Jim, what’s a “liberal?” Seriously. What is the definition of a “liberal?”

In therapy, your response would be considered one of avoidance due to emotional discomfort, covering up, hiding behind a response of nonsensical meanderings. Now you know this, as you do purport to be a therapist. I know this may be difficult for you Jim, but an emotionally honest balanced adult answer might be good for you. As they say, the truth will set you free. Now why don’t you buck up and speak sensibly, the answers to my questions. It could set the record straight not only for you but for the rest of us who may be interested. C’mon, be the authentic man you know you are. Or would you prefer to bat for strike two?

Devlin Bach

ChakTah,

With all due respect to everyone here, it is evident that each and every one of you may have suffered from sexual abuse on one level or another.

Sorry pal. But stereotype, wild assumptions, and Melissa Fryrear aside, there’s no sexual abuse in my history.