Posted by:
Lot's Wife
(
)
Date: September 01, 2019 05:31PM
Admins, why do you keep deleting my responses to SL Cabbie's false credentials? He has cited his training in "graduate" psychology many times as an explanation for why he is entitled to call posters with whom he disagrees "narcissists." It is entirely appropriate for me to respond by indicating exactly what his qualifications are.
Cabbie, you described your academic record, many times, as having completed the first part of the process for a CAC certification. That "graduate program" is for high school graduates. Your completing the course work--the first part of the program--took 270 hours, none of which included a class on psychology, and the clinical parts of the program that you failed to complete required 4-6,000 hours of training. So you did about 10% of a program designed for people who have graduated from high school and included no courses specifically on psychology. By your own account, you have no psychological expertise beyond that.
https://www.addictionacademy.com/certified-addiction-counselor.php----------------
> You're also
> being dishonest in your reporting of Anna C.
> Roosevelt's views. The 2012 video reflects those
> views, your denial not withstanding.
Dissimulation. You cited that video in favor of your position that there are no pre-Clovis sites. She said nothing of the kind. In that video she argued against a single site's dating. Her attitude towards pre-Clovis is evident in her other statements: she embraces it. You can spin things any way you want. Roosevelt thinks you are wrong.
---------------
> Now would you care to address the specifics of
> Fiedel's claims rather than lamely insist they are
> dated.
Why would I answer a case brought 15 years ago--before the vast majority of the pre-Clovis evidence was available. Do you think I should comment on anything from the 19th century on American archaeology and anthropology or would you grant that there's no need to refute Joseph Smith's claims?
--------------
> God forbid that someone should have the temerity
> to disagree with you.
Disagree at will. Just bring some substance to the table.
------------------
>
> Edit: And while I was doing a bit of Google
> searching, I also found the following where LW
> engaged in a bit of "sock puppetry" by
> "supporting" her own thread under another
> moniker.
>
>
https://www.exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,2145784> ,2156975#msg-2156975
You should check that link. It takes you to a previous instance in which I showed that your archaeological stars think you are wrong.
As for my sock puppetry, here is the thread in which I created the moniker "Ineffable B*tch." Anyone who wants to can see that I did it openly and ironically. I will probably post with it occasionally going forward with the understanding that, like last time, everyone knows that there is only one ineffable bitch on RfM.
https://www.exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,2246987,2247547#msg-2247547-------------
> There was another predictable bit of language
> "legerdemain" when she accused me of
> "proofreading" an article of Simon Southerton's; I
> did more than that since he sought my input on
> what he was saying and whether it was clear to a
> layman or not.
That is the definition of "proof reading."
-------------
> Without understanding the
> underlying science, that wouldn't have been
> possible.
And yet he asked you to do the proofreading as a layman. He was not asking for, or expecting, any scientific expertise.