No that is not the crux of the matter. The crux of the matter is that you came to the forum and included a denunciation of the doctor in every one of your posts. When he asked you to back it up, you could not. He proved that your so-called "knowledge" about sexuality was totally and completely incorrect. Then, instead of apologizing for your error the way a decent and intellectually honest person would, you escalated your attack on the doctor, including slander and threats against him. After all that do you really imagine that he would reply to anything you write? He cut Zenemy off for the same reason. When he proved Zenemy wrong, that idiot totally ignored the doctor and just went on with his rant. Same as you. Dr. Robert has cut you off, Anthropussy. Do you get that? You are considered too egotistical and dishonest to merit any reply from him. We all saw it happen to Zenemy who disappeared after being cut dead and has never come back. Now it is your turn.
OK, Anthropussy, get ready to apologize. I went to the web archive called waybackmachine. I found a copy of the doctors letter to the boy as it appeared on May 28, 2010. I compared it to the present text. I found no difference at all. It is a long piece and I could be mistaken, but I FOUND NO DIFFERENCE AT ALL. NOT A SINGLE WORD.
Now you, knowing that you were about to be unmasked as a liar, would like to make an apology only for your error in claiming that the doctor changed the text to fool you, but that will not be nearly enough. That would be the kind of apology that an intellectual wimp would make.
If you are any kind of man at all, you must apologize for:
1. Questioning his standing as an expert
2. Questioning his integrity
3. Claiming he is guilty of mal-practice
4. Accusing him of hurting people
5. Accusing him of doing something unethical, damaging and dangerous
6. Polluting this space with the totally incorrect claim that "Heterosexuality, bisexuality and homosexuality are constructs of society, every psychologist and psychiatrist knows this almost since the 70's: that's thirty years ago!" and then failing to correct yourself although several of us asked you to do so
7. Accusing the doctor of speaking "ex cathedra as if you were an authority in the subject when you clearly are not!" when he IS an expert as everyone here knows.
8. Accusing him of being "unethical, biased, unsupported by accepted scientific views and contrary to the general belief of the scientific comunity." when he clearly showed that YOU are the one who is unsupported by scientific views.
If you are ready to make THAT apology, you will be redeemed. And if you have any decency at all, you might also apologize for behaving here as if you are some kind of savior whose job it is to protect the world against Dr. Robert.
Now, Anthropussy, will you apologize or not? If not, please just leave with your tail between your legs like Zenemy because without a serious and complete apology, you have no standing here at all.
Prediction: he won't apologize for anything, just disappear. "Anthropussy!" Love it.
Probably right, ROR. Good post, Doug.
Adam, are you really THAT thick?
When you questioned the doctor on a statement he made, he immediately backed it up with facts. This came as no surprise to the many here who have seen his ideas challenged before and seen him back them up, not with opinions but with robust evidence.
You PRETENDED to have expert knowledge ("Heterosexuality, bisexuality and homosexuality are constructs of society, every psychologist and psychiatrist knows this almost since the 70's: that's thirty years ago!"), and then when asked to back it up, you could not because it is just something you made up.
Maybe it would help if you read a couple of the good old threads on this forum which involve intelligent and open debate instead of the self-important, judgmental name-calling which appears to be your modus operandi:
Don't you realize that your outrageous overestimation of your own capacities, knowledge, and most of all, IMPORTANCE, is cutting you off from the flow here? Don't you realize that in attacking the doctor, a wise and educated person (who is liked by us here, including "psychopaths," just because he is knowledgeable and open) you are cutting yourself off the kind of discourse carried out in those threads? Are you really so armored or so non-insightful that you cannot see this? If so, all that great therapy with drugs and talk you told us about might require a slight touch up I think.
OK. This is beginning to feel a bit too much like piling on, and I would like to call a halt to it. I would prefer this forum to center upon meaningful conversations about psychology, philosophy, meaning and/or the lack of it, relationships, etc. instead of devolving into battle over whether dr. robert is any good or not, or whether Adam is a fraud or not. I understand that Adam in a sense asked for it, but enough is enough. I don't think he will be able to apologize. He began his negotiation about apologizing by saying this:
"Even if I think the current text is still surprisingly flawed, if the text was not altered I will make a public, even if humiliating, apology to Dr. Robert and to those who have expressed their indignation."
Translation: "Even a grudging semi-apology would humiliate me."
If that is the case--if he feels that having to eat some words is that painfully humiliating--the broader apology that you all expect of him seems out of reach entirely. That's OK with me. I do not need or require any apology, and anyway why try getting blood out of a stone? I believe, as many of you know, that people are not responsible for their personalities, the organization of which will be revealed, willy-nilly, for better or worse. This implies that we are not responsible for the maturity or lack of maturity of our habitual ego-defenses either. Believe it or not, everyone is actually doing the best he or she can. At least that is the way I see it.
I suggest making this post the last item in this thread. Last time I asked for an end to ad-hominum attacks, everyone came through, and the entire tone and meaning of this forum jumped to a higher energy level where it has remained almost entirely. I hope this forum can continue its development into a valuable center of intelligence and openness, so I am asking the same thing again. Just let Adam be Adam.
Tomorrow when I have a moment, I will start another thread on the subject of the illusion of free will and how that illusion can lead to an over-defended ego.
Dr. Robert did say one thing right, but this is just getting too silly for me: since when does showing humility constitute an admission of guilt?
Did any of you actually read anything I wrote besides the accusations I made near the end of my first post? The reasoning, the back story, the foundations... anything at all?
For example, Dr. Robert defended gay couples don't raise gay children. Has anyone noticed that in my first post I wrote:
"It is not just the example of the father/mother figure that makes someone follow a certain sexuality (children in the care of homosexual couples aren't more given to becoming homosexual, as far as studies have been able to determine, just a lot less homophobic)[...]"
Doesn't this sound even remotely familiar? "it is NOT just the example", "children [...] AREN'T more given to", et cetera?
If your reply is "no" then you have truly and utterly defeated me intelectually because of one simple truth: "There is no worse blind person than that who refuses to see."
Sorry for breaking my vow, but, although I believe a promiss must be kept to whoever we make it, even those who hate us and you now the rest, I am still human and I couldn't help it.
A couple of people who I respect have read what happens in this forum and have advised me to keep away... they are trying to convince me it is just not worth it. A gay friend of mine was speachless when I showed him everything...
I just don't know anymore... am I being too subtle? If there is one thing I learned is that, whenever we try to explain something to someone, if they do not understand, the first person in whom we must try to find a flaw is not the person to whom we are trying to explain the idea, but us. I have thought this over, I have tried to understand what I did wrong, but there is very little to make me reach a conclusion, other than the obvious one.
Other than the three accusations I made of Dr. Robert, did I ever write a single word that was, by itself, offensive? Did I call anyone something childish and disrespectful like people seem to be enjoying calling me?
They say those who speak softest usually win an argument if they are right. I did speak too loudly in my first posts but that was because they were addressed at Dr. Robert and I still want him to admit what he has done, but now, now that have been speaking softly, has anyone taken the time to try to listen? Why is everyone fearing any point of view other than that which is safe and comfortable?
It is like showing the mathematical proof of Euler's theorem to first grade children and watch them trying to prove it is wrong...
You have indeed taken me beyond the surreal... I commend you for being deeply and thorougly... human... I mean, at least I know you are all Homo Sapiens... but how many of you are Homo Sapiens Sapiens?
(sorry, Doctor Robert, but I can't stand this idiot) But you have not SHOWED any humility. You are involved in a massive, sick, delusional ego trip. You are the great mathematician and we are the children. And all the "gays" are on your side. Right?
Did you see anything other than that which you wanted to see? Like, for example, anything from the third to the fifth paragraph of my post?
How much clearer do you need me to be? I read Dr. Robert's reply three times, after I had already read it once, before I posted my criticism, to make sure I would be making no false accusations. Can you say the same about my posts?
Post Scriptum: the grammatically correct expression is "you have not shown" and not "showed". You could say, however, "you didn't show" or "you showed" if you would like... Oh, I forgot, I shouldn't talk to you as if you were first grade students, sorry...
Please people, start working: it has been minutes since someone has tried to insult me and my intelligence... come on, I have something important to say and I don't wan't to say it unless I'm provoked! It would take the fun out of it.
Oh, shoot! I'm going to sleep now... I hope by tomorrow someone else has done something intelligent like completely ignoring most of what I've written just to defend the axis of their perception of reality... You know how fashion is, it always comes back: this fashion was all the rage with the holy inquisition, I guess it is time for it to come back.
This thread, and few others, is a perfect example what happens when petty people infest a website. It's been fun people, enjoy the spam and one idiot posting with 75802457283 names, arguing with himself. I'm out of here.
Now if everyone leaves, I am stuck with.....?
Looks like you were right, ROR, he left the stage without any kind of apology at all. In fact, he was attacking my grammar on the way out. What a jerk!
The only thing I will apologize for here is for having used grammar as a pretense to get back at somone. A long time ago, it was done to me and I thought it was stupid, but I didn't even think about that in my last post. I was just too angry.
I am fed up with all this matter: I took the trouble of mentioning the exact sentences in my first post that showed why Dr. Robert's response was pointless and futile and no one even thought about it. Everyone is ignoring the facts out of a misguided loyalty towards a person that pampers them psychologically into total acceptance of anything he says.
Do as you wish...
Alexantropos, you are a fool. I do not imagine that reading what follows will enlighten you in any real way. You seem far too lost in your dimwitted fantasies of intellectual superiority for that. Nevertheless, other readers of this thread might appreciate reading the letter of thanks I just received from the young fellow you claimed would be damaged and wounded by my reply to his question. I quote it here in its entirety:
Dear Dr. Robert,
I'd first like to thank you for taking the time to reply to me, I deeply appreciate it. I apologize for taking over three months to reply, but I needed to thoroughly think through what you'd said, and I think I have done now. The first reason I write this letter is to explain my thoughts since our correspondence. I'm not sure why I feel the need to explain - or indeed, why I presume you'd be interested - but I do, so there you are.
I realize now how incorrect my ideas concerning sexuality really were - in fact, I think I knew from the start. What you say simply makes logical and scientific sense. I've read through your response many times and after a long period of self reflection, I've come to the conclusion that by confronting my sexuality in a theoretical, intellectual manner - or as you put it, by "filling my letter with my own answers to the questions I asked as well as logical arguments defending these answers"- I was trying to stay distant from the reality of the situation, and avoid dealing with my true feelings. My argument did hold very little water, and I think if I'd wanted to I could have easily seen just how flawed my beliefs were, but unfortunately I simply didn't want to, preferring to stay in denial instead.
Thankfully however, you've now stripped me of these false beliefs, which has meant I've now had to deal with my sexuality as one should, forthrightly and personally, with all the emotional stress that entails. I broke off the arrangement with Emily. What really got to me was when you said "I have seen that kind of thing tried many times, and it almost always ends badly, often with two people who really do care for one another having to separate, perhaps after having children together, or having made some other kind of major investment in the relationship." I know first hand the pain this can cause; as I said before, I have two gay family members, one of whom is my Dad, the other a cousin I don't know so well. When my Mum found out my parents divorced and now refuse to even speak to each other. They have shared custody, leaving me and my siblings torn between the two homes. The point is, I shouldn't have really needed you to remind me of why these relationships don't work when I have such a perfect first hand example right in front of my nose, but as I said before, I obviously preferred to stay in denial. I care too much for Emily for for me to knowingly hurt her when I can easily prevent it, whether my feelings can be called love or not, which is why I have ended it.
But it was also something more than that. By focusing all my energy into trying to maintain a heterosexual relationship I was again trying to deny my true sexual feelings, and if I am ever to be comfortable with and accept my own sexuality this is clearly something I can not be doing. I'm not saying that I want to pick the gay side and stick to it either, as to do so would just be another form of me denying my sexuality, just the heterosexual component instead. Rather, I just think that maintaning any sexual relationship with the sole aim of denying another part of your sexuality - which is I think, what I have been doing - is quite frankly backwards.
Intriguingly however, once I ended the relationship with Emily - and therefore began to accept my sexuality for what it is - I found that my sexual urges towards underage boys were diminished slightly, and my attraction towards men and woman of an appropriate age has increased. I don't mean to say that my pedophilic attraction has disappeared, as it hasn't, and it still remains predominant. What I mean to say is that now I've begun to accept my sexuality and have stopped denying my sexual feelings by forcing myself into an unhealthy sexual relationship and "projecting my own struggle for sexual self-acceptance onto a false controversy about nature vs. nurture", I've been able to experience sexual attraction seperate to that of my denial.
I'm not entirely sure what this means, although I've considered many possible theories. Perhaps in trying to deny one part of my sexuality I accidently denied it all? Maybe it was the fear of possible homosexuality that led me to displace my sexual feelings towards a less threatening target of children? Possibly I have sexual feelings towards men, women and boys, but my anxiety at the less acceptable pedophilic urges overrode the others until it became my primary desire? Of course, this speculation is all completely irrelevant until it could be proved for certain. What I do know however, is that this new information could be crucial into explaining why I harbour this paraphilia in the first place, which I can now explore further with a qualified psychotherapist.
Yes, I said psychotherapist. The thought of sex with children sickens me - from an ethical viewpoint at least - and I don't think I could live with myself if my urges ever forced me to abuse a child. I don't think I would ever willingly commit such an attrocity, but I'm smart enough to realize that the sheer power of the human sex drive may not give me a choice. For this reason I've decided the best thing I can do is to get psychotherapy, or some other kind of treatment. I've since looked up treatment for pedophilia and it's been shown to vary largely by patient, but if there's even a slightest chance that it could prevent me from doing something so awful then it's worth a try. Unfortunately, at the moment I obviously can't seek out therapy, both for financial reasons and not wanting my family to find out. However, if the problem hasn't resolved itself by the time I gain independence - which I very much doubt it will - then I will make sure to get the help that I do need.
The second reason I write is to ask a favour. In my letter I quickly mentioned another small list of problems just in case it had anything to do with my main problem. As it turned out you didn't find it relevant, and I realized after sending it how stupid it was of me to include it, as it makes me easily personally identifiable to anybody who knows me well enough. I'm therefore asking if you could possibly remove the small section in brackets containing these personal details from your website? I realize that you might not want to, if only to preserve your website's reputation, but I would really appreciate it if you did. I'd hate to think of this coming back to bite me on the arse in years to come once I've moved past it. So please, I'm almost begging you here, could you please possibly do me a small favour and remove the small section I thoughtlessly included, and then maybe combine the rest of the paragraph with the one above? And whilst you're there, you could omit this paragraph too? It would really mean a lot to me if you would.
Anyway, the final thing I want to do with this letter is to thank you. You've been an absolute huge comfort to me through your letter and have been a massive help towards my own sexual self acceptance. It's weird to think that one E-mail sent by somebody living thousands of miles away who I'll never meet could have such a dramatic impact on my life, and yet it has. I never could have predicted how much of a difference you would have have made to my life when I first wrote to you, but I am sincerely grateful for it. I do sound so cringeworthingly cheesy and melodramatic right now, but I really do mean it. Your website has been a huge help to me and will continue to be so for everyone worldwide who would not otherwise have access to this kind of support. You should feel truly proud of it.
Be well yourself.
So, Anthros, have you "showed why Dr. Robert's response was pointless and futile," or was your entire line of argument pointless and futile? I think the forum deserves an honest answer if you have any honesty in that weird brain of yours. If you cannot participate honestly here, why not get lost? You would be doing the rest of us, who like to take these conversations seriously, a big favor. Or, this could be the moment of your awakening. . . if you have the humility to realize that there are people in the world who know a lot more than you do.
You know, the Doc said it pretty well on his website, although he was not writing about Anthropussy at that point:
"Intelligence demands an open mind, not a bunch of premature, cynical judgments which call themselves "facts," so I hope you will understand that your point of view is not nearly as intelligent as you like to believe. Admitting to yourself that you know a lot less than you have been imagining is the doorway to intelligence. Right now you have that doorway blocked off entirely by a bunch of sophomoric, half-baked ideas."
That's really a beautiful answer to that would-be psychopath. Love the cartoons. Very glad I discovered Dr. Robert's website and this forum too.
OK, OK, I give up. I am sorry I offended you, Dr. Robert. I had no right to come on your forum acting like an expert when obviously I know far less about these matters than you do. You were completely correct in your advice to the boy, and I was foolish to question it. You are a trained professional, and I am not.
I have learned a lesson here, and I will do better in the future. Please accept my apology and allow me to keep participating on your forum.
I'm curious AA. What were you hoping to gain with this little game you played?
It wasn't a game. I am Greek. Something about the Doctor's answer and all the Greek history. I just don't like it. Anyway, we Greeks are passionate people.
Well I was one of those who "defended" the doc, and I think both you and Daniel are right. The doc certainly can stand up for himself if he needs to. What offended me so much was the total irrationality of Anthropussy's attack. I was OK with his initial disagreement with the doc. Everyone has a right to disagree. But even after the doc adduced facts and studies to refute Anthropussy, he would not stop attacking, and even got more far out with it. It is often said that you have a right to your own opinion, but not to your own facts. Anthropussy just went on inventing "facts." I just became irate, I guess.
BTW, I am a long time admirer of Dr. Robert's website, but I certainly do not see him as a cult leader, nor myself as a cult member. I think for myself and do not look to others to decide things for me. My attraction to Dr. Robert stems, I think, from a rare combination of traits he seems to embody: high intelligence with openness and compassion. Intelligence alone is not all that rare. But many if not most people with high IQs seem judgmental or cold. The doc is not like that at all. He seems to be someone I would like to have a drink with or sit down to dinner, which gives his writing a flavor I rarely find elsewhere.
Anyway, I am glad the apology was given and accepted. Perhaps I took the whole thing too seriously, but it feels better this way.
I also am someone who came to the doctor's defense and demanded the apology from AA, but I certainly don't see myself as a cult follower. Not at all. Several years ago, during a severe personal crisis, I wrote to Dr. Saltzman for advice, and, at no cost to me, received a long and comprehensive reply. The doctor's point of view on my problem opened my mind immediately, and since then I have experienced what I can only call a profound spiritual awakening. I understand that readers might be skeptical of this, skeptical that some words in an email could trigger such an awakening to inner realities, but that is my true experience.
When I read the libelous and mean-spirited attacks on the doctor's qualifications, abilities, and integrity, I knew the doctor would never demand an apology for them, and that is why I stepped in.
I agree with you, BT, the doctor does not really need to be defended. As he said in his letter to me, "I am nobody special, and either are you. We all just are, and only for a brief instant." With an attitude like that, why would he need any defense? Still, when one receives a profound teaching, one feels like honoring the teacher, and that was my intention. Simple as that.
Personally, I am happy that AA finally did apologize, and also glad that he apparently has stopped spamming the forum.
Take care all,
That is a beautiful line.
Thanks for your gracious apology. I accept it completely.
By the way, it never was my intention to ban you from the forum. All voices are permitted here.