This is what a hypocrite looks like : Stefan Molyneux abusing DMCA to censor

[PRB]

Nah, it's all me. I'm sure PRB will be uncharacteristically honest and confirm that all those neg reps are from me.



Because that is not his point. He couldn't care less about Stefan, Stephen, Steve, or anybody else like this. His whole schtick is going through liberty websites, finding what he identifies as gaps, and then posting here. His whole game is attempting to show the apparent hypocrisy of libertarians. I honestly don't know how you can miss this.

I'll admit you're partially right, I believe in exposing hypocrisy of copyright deniers.

if you don't believe in copyright fine, but if you're a hypocrite about it, I'll call you out. I don't believe all libertarian oppose copyright protection, therefore I don't target everybody to attack. But I do believe some positions are indefensible or easy for a person to be a hypocrite on, and therefore I'd point them out if a person does such things.

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

you go play your little pissing contest,

YOU mad, bro? Can you imagine if I got paid or worked for an organization like you?

gotta give you props for admitting you got nothing better to do.

At least I'm not doing this while I work. Still sitting at work and posting on your bosses time?

I'm just waiting for people to warm up after the holidays. Speaking of which--just got a Skype from a customer, so it's off to work. Til next time...

 

[jmdrake]

//

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

my guess is, he doesn't care whether Molyneux is right or wrong,

Neither do you, and I'm not guessing.

Just one more post so I can neg rep you again. Now, it's off to work.

Later on, fatback.

 

[jmdrake]

Read suspension hearing papers. She was not suspended because of "defooing"! In there it is specifically written that she never used "defooing" on/with her patients. She was suspended because stalkers used informations like photos, videos to get to peoples phone numbers, identity and other private informations to harass listeners. Use less he said/she said and more documents. They are out there (complaints, hearings, lawsuits and many more) if you are interested.

Sorry, but you are uninformed. From your own link.

(a) You made public statements and provided advice to the public via the website www.freedomainradio.com and podcasts available thereon, wherein you promoted and recommended “deFOOing”, or dissociating from families of origin, both in general terms and in providing advice to specific individuals. You further made these statements and provided this advice in the context of your personal experience and while relying upon your qualifications as a psychological associate. Finally, when providing advice to individuals, you did so without properly assessing the circumstances of the members of the internet audience to whom the advice was provided;

So can we end the attacks on PRB in his thread now? The "evidence" presented in Stefan's case proves he is a liar and that the people defending him haven't even bothered to vet his claims.

 

[jmdrake]

Neither do you, and I'm not guessing.

Just one more post so I can neg rep you again. Now, it's off to work.

Later on, fatback.

Sorry, but he's telling the truth. Barrex link defending Stefan actually show Stefan to be the liar. At a certain level I like Stefan too. He's done a lot to help advance the cause of liberty. But he and his wife have given dangerous cultish advice to listeners and to her patients and then he turned around and lied about it.

 

[jmdrake]

Everyone please read this in its entirety before commenting further.

https://members.cpo.on.ca/public_register/investigation_detail/124

COLLEGE OF PSYCHOLOGISTS OF ONTARIO

IN THE MATTER OF The Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991, S.O. 1991, Chapter 18 and the Psychology Act, 1991, S.O. 1991, Chapter 38;

AND IN THE MATTER OF Ms. Christina Papadopoulos, Psychological Associate

AND IN THE MATTER OF a hearing before a panel of the Discipline Committee of the College of Psychologists of Ontario concerning allegations of professional misconduct against Christina Papadopoulos, Psychological Associate as set out in the Amended Notice of Hearing dated May 17, 2012

DECISION OF THE DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE PANEL

The hearing of a Panel of the Discipline Committee of the College of Psychologists of Ontario (hereinafter referred to as the “Panel”) took place in Toronto on Tuesday, October 30, 2012. The panel was composed of Ms. Judy Cohen (“Chair”), Dr. Milan Pomichalek, Dr. Pamela Wilansky Traynor, Ms. Mary Bradley and Mr. Vincent Lacroix. The College was represented by Mr. Peter Osborne. Ms. Papadopolous was represented by Ms. Lisa Hamilton. Mr. Ian Roland was present as independent counsel for the Panel.

THE ALLEGATIONS OF MISCONDUCT

An Amended Notice of Hearing, dated May 17, 2012, was filed with the Panel. It set out the allegations of professional misconduct against Ms. Papadopoulos as follows:

1. Failed to maintain the standards of the profession contrary to subsection 1 (2) of the Professional Misconduct Regulation. This includes failing to conduct yourself so that your activities comply with those statutes and regulations that apply to the provision of psychological services, contrary to section 2.1 of the Standards of Professional Conduct (Effective September 1, 2005) (“Standards”), providing information, advice or comment to the public in a manner contrary to section 6.5 of the Standards, providing psychological services while objectivity, competence and effectiveness were compromised contrary to section 12.2 of the Standards, and rendering opinions that were not based upon current, reliable, adequate and appropriate information contrary to section 14.3 of the Standards;

2. Provided a service that you knew or ought to have known was not likely to benefit the client, contrary to section 1 (9) of the Professional Misconduct Regulation;

3. Engaged in conduct or performed an act, in the course of practicing the profession, that, having regard to all the circumstances, would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable, or unprofessional, contrary to section 1 (34) of the Professional Misconduct Regulation.
By way of further particulars, it is alleged in the Amended Notice of Hearing that:

(a) You made public statements and provided advice to the public via the website www.freedomainradio.com and podcasts available thereon, wherein you promoted and recommended “deFOOing”, or dissociating from families of origin, both in general terms and in providing advice to specific individuals. You further made these statements and provided this advice in the context of your personal experience and while relying upon your qualifications as a psychological associate. Finally, when providing advice to individuals, you did so without properly assessing the circumstances of the members of the internet audience to whom the advice was provided;

(b) Your statements in support of deFOOing are not supported by current professional literature or consistent with the standards. Furthermore these statements were made in the absence of any meeting or proper assessment, and posed significant harm to members of the public and to the individuals to whom you directed your advice and comments;

(c) You made more general statements and provided advice, both in general terms and directed towards particular individuals that are not supported by current professional literature or consistent with the standards. One example is your statement that “no one is better off single than coupled.” Another example is the following statement, made in the context of answering the question regarding why someone was attracted to women who were not interested in a romantic relationship:

“I would say that it’s because he questions himself that he ends up choosing women who were not interested in him, or-not necessarily not interested in him, who were not emotionally available or who move him directly into a guy friend status. There’s a part of you, my dear friend, that doesn’t think you are worthy of having that level of intimacy, or that level of connectedness with someone. There’s a part of you, I think, that’s also quite afraid of it so you’re drawn to people who aren’t going to be able to give it to you.”;

(d) Your objectivity, competence and effectiveness were compromised by financial interests since you and the Freedomain Radio website through which you communicated your advice actively solicited donations from readers and listeners, which promoted and benefited the site managed by your husband Mr. Stefan Molyneux, with the suggestion that the level of donation reflect the number of podcasts listened to by any individual. Your private practice website (www.mississaugatherapy.com) was also accessible in the “Ask a Therapist” section of the Freedomain Radio website;

(e) In presenting information that is not representative of the discipline of the profession of psychology, and which could be harmful to a member or members of the public, while using and relying upon your credentials as a registered psychological associate member of the College, you acted in a manner that would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional.

AGREED STATEMENT OF FACTS

The parties presented the Panel with an Agreed Statement of Facts which states as follows:

The member, Ms. Christina Papadopoulos, hereby formally admits the following facts:

The Member has been a member of the College, registered as a Psychological Associate since December 10, 1997. Since that time, the member has been authorized to provide psychological services in Ontario, and provide such services in an autonomous practice in Mississauga.

The College received two complaints concerning the Member. The first was received in June 2009 and the second was received in April 2011. A panel of the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (“ICRC”) of the College considered each complaint and disposed of it in accordance with the provisions of the Health Professions Procedural Code (the “Code”) by way of a referral, in each case, of specified allegations of misconduct arising from those complaints to the Discipline Committee of the College.

Subsequent to the referral arising out of each complaint of specified allegations of professional misconduct to the Discipline Committee, the College issued an amended Notice of Hearing, in order that, in accordance with the consent of the Member, these two related matters could proceed together by way of one consolidated hearing. There is significant overlap between the specified allegations of professional misconduct and the facts underlying those specified allegations, in each case, and accordingly, a joint hearing is the most expeditious and appropriate manner in which to proceed, given the public interest.

In the course of investigating the second complaint, the College conducted an investigation pursuant to S. 75 of the Health Professions Procedural Code, being Schedule 2 to the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991. The investigation reviewed 10 records from the Member’s practice, and found that the Member had not recommended deFOOing to any of the clients to whom the 10 records pertained. However the Member made public statements and provided advice to the public via the website www.freedomainradio.com and podcasts available thereon, wherein she discussed and recommended “deFOOing”, or dissociating from families of origin in providing advice to specific individuals. The Member made statements and provided advice in the context of her personal experience and also while relying upon her qualifications and registration as a Psychological Associate. While providing advice to individuals, she did so without properly assessing the circumstances of the members of the internet audience to whom advice was provided.

Ms. Papadopoulos acknowledges and recognizes, that the making of personal disclosures in the context of the podcasts in which she was identified as a therapist and a registered member of the College, were capable of misinterpretation as psychological advice although she maintains that they were not intended as such.

While it may be appropriate to recommend family separation in cases of abuse, the Member did not obtain a sufficient history to ascertain whether the advice was warranted in the circumstances discussed in the podcasts. Although the Member advised that listeners seek professional help in their home communities on a number of locations, she acknowledges that this advice was given in the absence of any meeting or proper assessment, and there was significant risk of misunderstanding by members of the public and the individuals to whom the Member directed advice and comments and such misunderstandings posed a risk of harm.

The Member made general statements and provided advice, both in general terms and directed towards particular individuals that are not supported by current professional literature or consistent with the Standards. One example is the following statement, made in the context of answering the question regarding whether some people are better off single than coupled. The Member replied:

“My immediate impulsive reaction is: no one is better off single than coupled-and sometimes our impulses are correct, and sometimes are (sic) impulses are just that, and need to be explored and debated.”

“Given how dysfunctional many people are in today’s society, I’d say that it is better for them to be single. In fact I do counsel a lot of my clients not to date while they’re going through the process of therapy, because it is far too difficult to manage the relationship while you’re trying to figure yourself out, and often times those relationships will end up failing.”

“… In a perfect world where everybody is psychologically healthy, I think, you know, relationships are absolutely-can be absolutely wonderful. Very stimulating… I can only speak based on my relationships with [her husband] how enormously satisfying and fulfilling it is, and how happy we are. And, I wish that for everybody. I really, truly do… But, I don’t think it’s possibly for everybody until they are able to work through a lot of their own issues.”

Another example is the following statement, made in response to a question about why someone was attracted to women who were not interested in a romantic relationship:

“I would say that it’s because he questions himself that he ends up choosing women who are not interested in him, or-not necessarily interested in him, who are not emotionally available or whom moved him directly into a guy friend status there’s part of you, my dear friend, that doesn’t think you are worthy of having that level of intimacy, or that level of connectedness with someone. There’s a part of you, I think, that’s also quite afraid of it so you’re drawn to people who aren’t going to be able to give it to you.”

There is the risk and certainly the perception of the public, that the Member’s objectivity, competence and effectiveness were compromised by financial interests, since the Freedomain Radio website (although not the Member herself), actively solicited donations from readers and listeners, which promoted and benefited the site managed by the Member’s husband, with the suggestion that the level of donation to the website (her husband) reflect the number of podcasts listened to by any individual. The member’s private practice website (www.mississaugatherapy.com) was also accessible in the “Ask a Therapist” section of the Freedomain Radio website.

In presenting information that is not representative of the discipline of the profession of psychology, and which could be harmful to a member or members of the public, while using and relying upon her qualifications and registration as a registered Psychological Associate member of the College, the Member acted in a manner that would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional.

The Member agrees and admits that she failed to maintain the Standards of the profession contrary to subsection 1 (2) of the Professional Misconduct Regulation, provided a service that she knew or ought to have known was not likely to benefit the client, and has engaged in conduct or performed an act, in the course of practicing the profession, that, having regard to all the circumstances, would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional, contrary to the Professional Misconduct Regulation.

Ms. Papadopoulos states, confirms and acknowledges that at the time of the relevant podcasts and her participation therein, she was, with the benefit of hindsight, naïve about the use and possible misuse of information distributed via the Internet and the possibility that such delivery may facilitate miscommunication and misunderstandings. In addition, Ms. Papadopoulos agrees and confirms that she has not participated in any podcasts, through freedomainradio.com or otherwise, since the making of the first complaint in connection with this matter and further undertakes, acknowledges and agrees not to do so in the future. The Member therefore pleads guilty to Allegation Nos. 1, 2 and 3 in the Amended Notice of Hearing dated May 17, 2012

THE PLEA
Ms. Papadopoulos admitted the allegations of professional misconduct as set out in the Amended Notice of Hearing and she confirmed the accuracy of the contents of the Agreed Statement of Facts.

THE DECISION
The Panel found Ms. Papadopoulos guilty of professional misconduct on the basis of the agreed facts admitted by her and entered into evidence at the hearing by agreement of the parties.

THE PENALTY
The parties jointly submitted that the following penalty should be imposed by the Panel.

1. The Member agrees to accept a reprimand.

2. The Member agrees that she will not provide advice of a psychological nature in any podcast or internet-based broadcast.

3. The Member will undergo a one year period of peer mentorship at her own expense, with a peer mentor to be appointed by the Registrar, who will meet with the member at a frequency determined by the peer mentor to be sufficient to monitor ongoing treatment, not less than monthly, and will review a sample of client records selected at random by the mentor. The mentor will report to the Registrar at least once every three months, with such report addressing any concerns that have arisen with regard to the Member’s advice to clients. The Mentor will receive a copy of any Agreed Statement of Facts and Decision in this matter. The mentorship will commence no later than two months after the approval of this Undertaking/Agreement by the Discipline Committee.

4. The Member will successfully complete at her own expense:

(a) the clinical extern program “Brief and Narrative Therapies with Families, Couples and Individuals (Level 1)” offered by the Hincks Centre, or a similar program to be approved by the Registrar; and

(b) a program of study approved by the Registrar and administered by a member of the College, and who may be the Peer Mentor, who will design and implement the program of study (which would include an assigned reading list, meetings with the member, engaging in discussions with the member and include content and objective evaluation similar in nature to a university-level course), and which will focus on emotional development, psychopathology, psychotherapy across the lifespan, and a discussion on how communications and professional opinions to clients and others are perceived.

5. The Member’s Certificate of Registration will be suspended for a period of six months. The suspension will be suspended until December 31, 2013, at which time the suspension will be fully remitted if the Member has complied with paragraphs 3 and 4 of this Order.

6. A term, condition or limitation will be imposed on the Member’s Certificate of Registration, prohibiting her from engaging in the provision of psychological services to any clients involving dissociation from family of origin, except under the direct guidance of the Peer Mentor, until such time as she has complied with paragraphs 3 and 4 of this Order.

THE DECISION ON PENALTY
The Panel considered the Joint Submission on Penalty, as well as the Agreed Statement of Facts. The Panel found that the penalty jointly proposed by the parties was appropriate in the circumstances. The Panel so ordered.

At the end of the hearing Ms. Papadopoulos waived her right to appeal. The Panel delivered the reprimand to Ms. Papadopoulos following the conclusion of the hearing.

REASONS FOR THE DECISION ON PENALTY

The Panel approved and accepted the Joint Submission on Penalty for the following reasons:

1. The Panel accepted that it has an obligation to agree to accept a Joint Submission on Penalty arrived at between the College and the member, with the assistance of counsel, unless the Joint Submission is found by the Panel to be contrary to the public interest or that it brings administration of the discipline process into disrepute.

The Panel concluded that the Joint Submission on Penalty addresses the public interest and it did not bring the administration of the discipline process into disrepute.

2. The Panel noted that Ms. Papadopoulos had cooperated fully with the discipline process and with the College, in that she pled guilty to each allegation which saved the College the time and expense of a contested Hearing. She acknowledged and has taken responsibility for her actions. She has already signed an Undertaking Agreement with the College.

3. The Panel further noted that when ten files were inspected at random from Ms. Papadopoulos’ Mississauga practice, there was no indication that the member had recommended deFOOing. The practice of counseling deFOOing related only to public statements and providing advice to the public on the internet via the website www.freedomdomain.com and podcasts available.

4. The Panel further noted that when informed of the complaint, Ms. Papadopoulos immediately stopped all participation and shutdown the podcast. Ms. Papadopoulos further agreed not to provide advice or counseling of a psychological nature in any podcast or internet-based broadcast and/or make other public statements involving conflict with, and alienation and/or dissociation from family of origin or otherwise, in the future. Ms. Papadopoulos admitted that she had been naïve in providing information and counseling in this forum.

5. The Panel further noted that the Undertaking to which Ms. Papadopoulos agreed to and signed was quite substantial including:

(i) a term, condition or limitation on her Certificate of Registration prohibiting her from engaging in the provision of psychological services to any clients involving dissociation from family of origin, except under the direct guidance of the Peer Mentor, until such time as she has complied with the educational and peer mentorship components of the Order.

(ii) an educational component: the clinical extern program “Brief and Narrative Therapies with Families, Couples and Individuals (Level 1)” offered by the Hincks Centre, or a similar program to be approved of the Registrar;

(iii) a program of study approved by the Registrar and administered by a member of the College, who may be the Peer Mentor.
The Panel further noted that Ms. Papadopoulos has already begun the educational component of the Agreement/Undertaking.

6. The penalty provides a sufficient general deterrent to the other professional members of the College. It makes it clear that the College does not tolerate the kind of misconduct engaged in by Ms. Papadopoulos and reminds the other members of the profession of the importance of adhering to the highest professional and ethical standards. Furthermore, since there is potential of harm when offering psychological services on the internet, it will deter other members of the profession from engaging in similar acts.

7. The Panel further noted that for the reasons indicated above the public would have every reason to be confident in this profession’s ability to regulate and discipline itself.

Dated this 31st day of October, 2012

Ms. Judy Cohen (Chair)
Ms. Mary Bradley
Mr. Vincent Lacroix
Dr. Milan Pomichalek
Dr. Pamela Wilansky Traynor

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Sorry, but he's telling the truth.

I'm talking about PRB and his purpose for being here. Chances are--PRB knew next to nothing about this Stefan before he researched this post.

He's also chicken livered, just like Zip. Refused to take my bet where the loser leaves the forum for good. Neither one will take the bet. Now why do you suppose that is?

 

[PRB]

Sorry, but he's telling the truth. Barrex link defending Stefan actually show Stefan to be the liar. At a certain level I like Stefan too. He's done a lot to help advance the cause of liberty. But he and his wife have given dangerous cultish advice to listeners and to her patients and then he turned around and lied about it.

I should add that, I believe jmdrake and I had a pretty nasty disagreement on the thread about Chris Kyle. So it's not at all that he and I are either working together or I just disagree with everybody. I disagree with people when I do, and I'm not afraid to applaud a person when I agree.

 

[PRB]

I'm talking about PRB and his purpose for being here. Chances are--PRB knew next to nothing about this Stefan before he researched this post.

He's also chicken livered, just like Zip. Refused to take my bet where the loser leaves the forum for good. Neither one will take the bet. Now why do you suppose that is?

I'm not taking a bet from somebody who can't even prove I am a liar or liberal. Every time I ask, you zip up and say "I already did".

 

[jmdrake]

I should add that, I believe jmdrake and I had a pretty nasty disagreement on the thread about Chris Kyle. So it's not at all that he and I are either working together or I just disagree with everybody. I disagree with people when I do, and I'm not afraid to applaud a person when I agree.

We did? I forgot about that. Then again I've probably had a nasty disagreement with just about everyone on this forum at some time or another. My New Years resolution is to not have any nasty disagreements! Starting in January 2016.

 

[PRB]

I'm talking about PRB and his purpose for being here. Chances are--PRB knew next to nothing about this Stefan before he researched this post.

He's also chicken livered, just like Zip. Refused to take my bet where the loser leaves the forum for good. Neither one will take the bet. Now why do you suppose that is?

I'll tell you the truth about what i know and don't know about Stefan molyneux.

I've heard about him a few years ago on youtube. I don't follow him much, but I know him, like many ancaps, and along with Stephan Kinsella, oppose copyright protection. On top of that, I am aware of rampant DMCA abuse on youtube. This includes the Righthaven saga a few years back, then there was SOPA.

Because of my interest on these topics, I've followed the site techdirt, this is where I heard of the story about Molyneux. I don't need to know all his positions to know he's opposed to copyright and he's lied about this from his own admission.

 

[specsaregood]

Then again I've probably had a nasty disagreement with just about everyone on this forum at some time or another.

I don't think I would characterize any of my disagreements with you as "nasty".

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

I'm not taking a bet from somebody...

You won't bet me where the loser leaves the forum for good?

Why not? What do you have to lose?

 

[PRB]

You won't bet me where the loser leaves the forum for good?

Why not? What do you have to lose?

I like coming on this forum, so there's that. I don't gain anything by you leaving either. So there's nothing to gain and a little interaction/entertainment/education to lose.

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

I like coming on this forum, so there's that. I don't gain anything by you leaving either. So there's nothing to gain and a little interaction/entertainment/education to lose.

LOL. Yeah, you're paid.

 

[dannno]

Sorry, but you are uninformed. From your own link.

(a) You made public statements and provided advice to the public via the website www.freedomainradio.com and podcasts available thereon, wherein you promoted and recommended “deFOOing”, or dissociating from families of origin, both in general terms and in providing advice to specific individuals. You further made these statements and provided this advice in the context of your personal experience and while relying upon your qualifications as a psychological associate. Finally, when providing advice to individuals, you did so without properly assessing the circumstances of the members of the internet audience to whom the advice was provided;

So can we end the attacks on PRB in his thread now? The "evidence" presented in Stefan's case proves he is a liar and that the people defending him haven't even bothered to vet his claims.

Dude, Barrex is technically right.. it says right in the link you posted that the only thing she was in trouble for was appearing on the internet radio broadcast and offering advice regarding defooing without having a deep enough understanding of the individual's situation, not for recommending defooing to her patients which they found no evidence of and admitted such toward the end of the link you provided, which you did not bold.

there was no indication that the member had recommended deFOOing. The practice of counseling deFOOing related only to public statements and providing advice to the public on the internet via the website www.freedomdomain.com and podcasts available.

To that end, I don't understand how Dr. Drew was able to be on "Love Line" for all those years with Adam Carolla. Dr. Drew would always offer really hasty advice without knowing the person or their situation very well, that was always my complaint with the show. I have the same complaint about Dr. Laura.. She will start yelling at her callers if they start giving her too much background information and then she gives them advice based on two or three sentences.. These people are/were broadcast on nationally syndicated radio and did basically the same thing they are accusing Stefan's wife of and they did so on a daily basis, I think it is ridiculous.. They would recommend breaking up with people and making all types of really extreme family related decisions based on almost nothing..

I'm guessing that Stefan is also correct that the reason this entire issue came up was likely due to the person harassing the callers, I have never seen any indication that Stefan is a liar.

 

[jmdrake]

You won't bet me where the loser leaves the forum for good?

Why not? What do you have to lose?

Okay. Here is a question. I think it's pretty well established now that Stefan Molyneux is a liar and that, worse, his lies facilitate him making money off of his followers. If I'm wrong, then please show me exactly how I am wrong. Barrex attempted to do that and he just further confirmed I was right. Now if I'm right, then why be angry at PRB for starting this thread?

 

[jmdrake]

Dude, Barrex is technically right.. it says right in the link you posted that the only thing she was in trouble for was appearing on the internet radio broadcast and offering advice regarding defooing without having a deep enough understanding of the individual's situation, not for recommending defooing to her patients which they found no evidence of and admitted such toward the end of the link you provided, which you did not bold.

Ummmmm...WHAT?

To that end, I don't understand how Dr. Drew was able to be on "Love Line" for all those years with Adam Carolla. Dr. Drew would always offer really hasty advice without knowing the person or their situation very well, that was always my complaint with the show. I have the same complaint about Dr. Laura.. She will start yelling at her callers if they start giving her too much background information and then she gives them advice based on two or three sentences.. These people are/were broadcast on nationally syndicated radio and did basically the same thing they are accusing Stefan's wife of and they did so on a daily basis, I think it is ridiculous..

I'm guessing that Stefan is also correct that the reason this entire issue came up was likely due to the person harassing the callers, I have never seen any indication that Stefan is a liar.

1) Yes Stefan is a liar and I've already posted the video to prove it. He claimed his wife was never suspended at all. That's not just lying, that's pathological lying.

2) I don't know about Dr. Drew and I don't follow Dr. Laura. But are you telling be that you don't understand the difference between giving hasty advice and giving blatantly wrong advice? How long should a Dr. know a patient before she should be able to say to a patient "Your family believes in the income tax? Defoo them!"

3) Professionals are held to a high standard of conduct even when they are not directly interacting with patients. If a medical doctor was on the radio telling someone "Do you have a migraine? Drink a liter of sulfuric acid and see if that clears it up."

4) Why on earth would you believe that the only way this would "come up" is if someone was harassing her patients? Do you not believe that someone could have simply filed a complaint with her governing body and included a link to the specific podcasts? I'm not one to go around always invoking Occam's Razor, but this time it really fits.

 

[dannno]

Okay. Here is a question. I think it's pretty well established now that Stefan Molyneux is a liar and that, worse, his lies facilitate him making money off of his followers. If I'm wrong, then please show me exactly how I am wrong. Barrex attempted to do that and he just further confirmed I was right. Now if I'm right, then why be angry at PRB for starting this thread?

I haven't seen anywhere Stefan is purposely lying and I'm guessing this is a really bad topic to use to try and 'prove' he is a liar because it sounds like a lot of what happened wasn't publicly documented - there was a horrible degree of harassment coming from a very hateful person toward her patient(s) and some of the callers on the show and it sounds like that is in fact what prompted the investigation to begin with - what resulted and what she was charged with regarding her advice on the show wasn't that big of a deal compared to what other bigger radio personalities do.