Charly Miller Responds to Lies and Disinformation Campaign Against Her
Update: Charly Miller's website is back up, thanks to the courage of Project DoD, who will not be intimidated by baseless threats.
Another target of the same disinformation campaign I have been subjected to is Charly Miller. The reason for this is that Charly Miller has an excellent website on restraint asphyxia filled with solid citations and evidence on the dangers of certain methods of restraint. Her resume reveals that she is very highly qualified in her field.
One of her webpages is about her views, as an expert on restraint asphyxia, on Ronald Federici's methods, as described in his book, Help for the Hopeless Child. To see the restraint method illustrated in Federici’s book, go to the book’s site on Amazon:
This is a lesson in propaganda tactics and selective reporting. For example, they selectively report on things she was falsely accused of, failing to mention that the charges were shown to be completely bogus, never proven and she was completely exonerated. The apparent assumption is that people who are accused of things are automatically guilty. They fail to mention all of the background she has that makes her highly qualified and focus on the fact that currently she isn't licensed, neglecting to mention that licensure is not required for what she has been doing for the past decade or so.
This seems to be a favorite tactic of cyber-smearers, who tried the same thing with Jean Mercer, a highly qualified developmental and experimental psychologist who has been an expert witness in cases involving child abuse at the hands and/or advice of so-called attachment "therapists". The ignorant cyber-abusers apparently either don't understand that developmental psychology is not a profession that has licensure or purposely choose to ignore this fact.
They ignore the fact that the only thing a license is needed for is direct practice, not teaching, blogging, book writing, professional publication, or any of the other activities people engage in. They also ignore the fact that being licensed is no guarantee of anything other than the fact that the person has attained the requisite degree level, passed a specified period of supervision and in most states, takes the required number of credits continuing education (CE) courses, although all too often, highly questionable therapies are given CEs. Click here for some other myths about licensure. To put it briefly, licensure does not guarantee expertise and accuracy and expertise and accuracy does not necessarily require licensure. What the average person doesn't realize is how difficult it is to get most state boards to take action against anything other than the most obvious violations and even that can sometimes take years to accomplish, while the licensed professional remains in practice.
The bogus anonymous bloggers used a similar selective reporting tactic with Larry Sarner by taking a court case he was involving and completely distorting things, accusing him of fraud when the case was a civil, not a criminal case that had nothing to do with fraud.
Anonymous postings have claimed that certain unnamed people are trying to obtain my records from FSU, through the FOIA and although my record there is squeaky clean, they will undoubtedly attempt to distort things. Stay tuned to find out how they do this. I have never been fired from any professional job I have ever held and my teaching evaluations were favorable and I was told by the Associate Dean that they were considered acceptable, but they will undoubtedly find a way to smear my reputation by their distortions in a way that will be all too obvious.
What never ceases to amaze me is the lack of awareness on the part of these cyber abusers as to how they are perceived. No one with any intelligence would give credibility to an anonymous individual who lacks the courage to put his name to the statements the vague, unsubstantiated insinuations being made and the all too obvious distortions, but apparently cyber abusers think their readers are too stupid to see through it.
Another target of the same disinformation campaign I have been subjected to is Charly Miller. The reason for this is that Charly Miller has an excellent website on restraint asphyxia filled with solid citations and evidence on the dangers of certain methods of restraint. Her resume reveals that she is very highly qualified in her field.
One of her webpages is about her views, as an expert on restraint asphyxia, on Ronald Federici's methods, as described in his book, Help for the Hopeless Child. To see the restraint method illustrated in Federici’s book, go to the book’s site on Amazon:
Click on “Look Inside” and search in the book for “SEQUENCE ONE HOLDING” and go to where this phrase appears on page 111.
The result has been lies and misinformation about Charly Miller that have been spread by an anonymous individual on various newsgroups, blogs and ads throughout the internet. The most ludicrous is that she was attacked for attending Renaissance Fairs in a wench's costume as a hobby! It appears to be the same anonymous individual who has been spreading lies about me. Click here and here and for Charly Miller's response and rebuttal that shows the egregious lies, distortions and irrelevancies circulated by anonymous crackpot bloggers about her.This is a lesson in propaganda tactics and selective reporting. For example, they selectively report on things she was falsely accused of, failing to mention that the charges were shown to be completely bogus, never proven and she was completely exonerated. The apparent assumption is that people who are accused of things are automatically guilty. They fail to mention all of the background she has that makes her highly qualified and focus on the fact that currently she isn't licensed, neglecting to mention that licensure is not required for what she has been doing for the past decade or so.
This seems to be a favorite tactic of cyber-smearers, who tried the same thing with Jean Mercer, a highly qualified developmental and experimental psychologist who has been an expert witness in cases involving child abuse at the hands and/or advice of so-called attachment "therapists". The ignorant cyber-abusers apparently either don't understand that developmental psychology is not a profession that has licensure or purposely choose to ignore this fact.
They ignore the fact that the only thing a license is needed for is direct practice, not teaching, blogging, book writing, professional publication, or any of the other activities people engage in. They also ignore the fact that being licensed is no guarantee of anything other than the fact that the person has attained the requisite degree level, passed a specified period of supervision and in most states, takes the required number of credits continuing education (CE) courses, although all too often, highly questionable therapies are given CEs. Click here for some other myths about licensure. To put it briefly, licensure does not guarantee expertise and accuracy and expertise and accuracy does not necessarily require licensure. What the average person doesn't realize is how difficult it is to get most state boards to take action against anything other than the most obvious violations and even that can sometimes take years to accomplish, while the licensed professional remains in practice.
The bogus anonymous bloggers used a similar selective reporting tactic with Larry Sarner by taking a court case he was involving and completely distorting things, accusing him of fraud when the case was a civil, not a criminal case that had nothing to do with fraud.
Anonymous postings have claimed that certain unnamed people are trying to obtain my records from FSU, through the FOIA and although my record there is squeaky clean, they will undoubtedly attempt to distort things. Stay tuned to find out how they do this. I have never been fired from any professional job I have ever held and my teaching evaluations were favorable and I was told by the Associate Dean that they were considered acceptable, but they will undoubtedly find a way to smear my reputation by their distortions in a way that will be all too obvious.
What never ceases to amaze me is the lack of awareness on the part of these cyber abusers as to how they are perceived. No one with any intelligence would give credibility to an anonymous individual who lacks the courage to put his name to the statements the vague, unsubstantiated insinuations being made and the all too obvious distortions, but apparently cyber abusers think their readers are too stupid to see through it.
Comments
Post a Comment