Quote
rrmoderator
frank-d:

Please don't cut and paste long posts from other discussion groups here.

ok.

Abridged response to Ivy's comment:

Quote
Ivy
Oh by the way, the Mod did remove them, they just quite posting because they got backed into a corner.

This is false. You are being lied to (hmm, Deja Vue)

Here is the truth.

Platinum Weasel was REMOVED after he sent a post to the group and the moderator prevented it from being posted. He also e-mailed it to a handful of MKP people on the list because he thought it would be censored. Why do you suppose he would think THAT?

It was an answer to a VALID question that YOU asked which was 'Why are you here?". Did you ever see this post Ivy? Did you ever get a chance to rebuttle his observations? No, it was not allowed.

'Warrior X' said in an earlier post when he first censored PW that ::

"A member of this group emailed me privately about concerns with P.
Weasel. He has shown me the evidence for his concern. I tried to
contact P. Weasel about these concerns but his email address is not
listed in the membership.

Since I have no way to contact him privately to discuss these concerns
from another member, I have put P.Weasel on moderated status.

That means he can still post to this group, however I can read the
post first and approve of it before it goes to the full board.

This group is to help those who have been hurt by MKP. I don't want
anyone here to be hurt again by a MKP member."

Ah yes, the nebulous 'concerns'. And 'X' is a hero because "I don't want anyone here to be hurt again by a MKP member." (by allowing them to hear opinions that contradict theirs. Is he their doctor or babysitter?)

Ivy, do you need Warior X to 'protect' you from being hurt? He seems to think you do.

P.W. then replied to him, sending his e-mail address and asking what the concerns were. Never got a response. Then he sent the 'why I am here' post, which was censored. So he resent it and CC'd it to 4 people in the group who had been part of an E_mail that was sent to HIM from an MKP supporter.

After that he was unsubscribed with no mention to the group that it had been done. That is a fact.

If you like, I can mail you the post.

Ivy,

X "moderated" me to oblivion also for passing a "good-bye" note to the group from another member that was removed warning. My sin was passing that good-bye to the group without permission. The note was from someone who typically spoke positive words about his MKP experience.

I don't think you're being lied to.. Did someone tell you that platnium_weasel simply quit posting because he was backed into a corner? My guess is that you make up that jazz all on your own. You seem very capable of such based on the content of your posts.

Ask X how many voices he's "moderated" in the last 6 months. I think you'll find that there are a number of members "missing" because they can no longer post, not because they've been cornered. X is now moderating personal emails between members, eh? That doesn't suprise me in the least... X seems to be a pretty honest guy.. Just ask him how many and he'll probably tell you.

Consider the viewpoint of those moderated individuals and consider the content of their posts. If they're not moderated for "abuse" - then why are they moderated? If they are moderated for "abuse" is the same standard being applied to all members? If you're capable of basic analysis, you'll begin to figure out why you can't get your MKP questions answered on that forum: There aren't many MKP members left.. The members that are left seem to get "moderated" if they speak their minds actively. You ask for discussion about the issues which make you angry, but don't like the response!

There is a lot of good information in ex_mkp. You need to go along with the company line if you want to be able to read it.

EDIT: recognized moderators content. First and last post on the issue.

This is not a board to discuss other boards.

Quote
rrmoderator
This is not a board to discuss other boards.

Agreed.

I have one question and that is this: How many people who MKP has 'allegedly' hurt were already having serious issues in their lives and the involvement with MKP brought those issues to the forefront. Using rrmod's explanation about how LGATs can harm members because they are not professional therapists, they did more harm to the person (and by association, to MKP's image) by not recognizng the issues that were present with this person.

So, the person leaves bitter and still in the darkness they were in when they arrived on MKP's doorstep.

Could explain the hostility that 'stays around' in these peoples lives. It isn't that they were deliberatly 'harmed' it is that they were not 'helped' and instead found themselves hurting more.

Which is why my opinion is that MKP _should_ have some professional people on their staff and perhaps some kind of screening process to detect the people who need psychiatric help.

Thank you RR. Each board has its own reasons for being there. I am tired of hearing of Xwarrior's board. I post on both places, but each has its own value.

Quote
feldspar
I posted this link to a research paper several months ago. I would be interested in your take on the quality of the research and conclusions if you have time to read it

[72.14.203.104]

Actually, I did take the time to skim the entire dissertation, and like others who posted on this dissertation, his research is questionable at best. And let me qualify this opinion by admitting that I have been to dissertation writing classes, have been accredited by my Research I university as having been trained on ethical research/study methodologies, and am currently in the middle of writing my own dissertation (not on the mkp, though--albeit another diss on this would be a great idea).

Let me explain my position:

The author . . .

*is a member of mkp (which constitutes a conflict of interest). How can he be objective in his study? He even dedicates his dissertation to mkp and thanks the men there for all they have done for them. Sure, thanking research participants is common for any diss that studies a certain group, but his rhetoric suggests that they helped him with more than just his research: "to the men of the ManKind Project. You have been a joy, a source of growth, and a salvation. I am deeply grateful for all you have shared with me, and your presence and passion has changed me forever." As soon is this comment is made in his dedication section, his credibility is shot, as readers should question his objectivity in the outcomes of his study.

*does not recognize the roots of the mkp beyond Tosi, Kauth, and Hering. In any research, credibility is built by knowing the intellectual history of your research subject, and better understanding the links the mkp has to Sterling and his institute (and some may even argue to Hubbard and Scientology) is required of him to do anything more than a superficial treatment of his research.

*focuses solely on the benefits of the group. His dissertation reads more like a summary report on the mkp, not the answer to a debatable research question. He only includes the point of view of pro-mkp'ers. And though he cites a 55.7% dropout rate of the Washington DC group he studied, he does not follow up with ex-mkp'ers to see why they left the group. Instead, he simply states: "This level of retention and satisfaction, despite over half of the men no longer participating in an I-group, is considerably higher than has been reported for some other kinds of mutual support groups, and given that it encompasses all groups in an eight year period, may be considered a relatively positive indicator of effectiveness (cf. Luke, Roberts, & Rappaport, 1993)." What other groups is he comparing the I-group to? Perhaps some stats for those would make his argument more convincing. Thus, no balanced discussion has taken place in his dissertation. He's doing more "speechifying" (as one member here puts it) than conversing (monlogue vs. dialogue). And there's no mention of the ties to LGAT, which is agreed upon by pro- and anti-mkp'ers alike. Even those who think that LGATs can be productive groups recognize the downsides to them.

*cites sources primarily written by mkp'ers, so of course his research is going to discuss the mkp in only a positive light (this is also tied to credibility issues).

I take issue with other aspects of this dissertation (not to mention its poor grammar and over reliance on just inserting handouts from the MKP and not analyzing the slippery rhetoric therein), but I don't really want to spend more time on this dissertation than the author, Prof. Burke, did. ;-)

I think Prof. Burke's dissertation can be helpful for those wanting to learn more about the objectives of this particular mkp chapter and I-group, as he summarizes a great deal of the mkp literature for this chapter, but he offers very little more than what the mkp website for the chapter does--and certainly does not provide his readers with a well-balanced discussion of the origins, controversies, and outcomes of the mkp.

Thanks for your interest in my opinion, feldspar. Let me know if you want a more specific response to any given part of the diss.

Quote
SeekTruth
Anidawehi I owe you a reply but have not had the chance to give it the consideration it deserves, it is coming. This was to show support for Duke's effort and free speech.

Support for your peers is important--I respect that. Looking forward to your response. Take care.

Quote
ginah
What makes MKP Educational instead of Therapeutic? Are their certain guidlines that has to be followed to be regarded as Therapeutic instead of Educational? Is it just MKP making that judgement? I would be interested in further understanding the distinction between the two. Especially, as for me, when I read their manuals it points me in the direction of MKP being Therapeutic more than Educational.
Thank You

I agree, ginah. It certainly appears that mkp is doing so pretty intense therapy based on Jungian and Gestalt theories. However, in order for the group to claim that they are doing therapy, they must go through a licensing and accreditation process, and they simply do not have the training to do so.

Now, I'm not a therapist, but my hubby is, and this is the issue to the best of my recollection. The mkp leaders themselves would all have to get clinical psychology or social work degrees and take the state licensing test and pass it to become licensed to claim to do therapy. Further, the mkp organization would have to go through the state (and sometimes local) mental health accreditation boards to ensure that they are meeting the minimum requirements for safe and ethical mental health treatment (and that their records are indicating proper diagnosis, treatment, and after-care). Also, psychiatrists must review and sign off on all treatment done by therapists without an independent licensure, which takes at least a graduate degree, about 5 years of supervised treatment, and another test.

Even though some mkp leaders may have mental health backgrounds, they cannot meet the rigors of state licensure and accreditation to legitamize their "treatment." Thus, the mkp could be held legally (thus, criminally) liable for claiming any sort of therapeutic benefit, as they do not have the credentials to be engaging in mental health therapy. Thus, they must label what they are doing as "educational," as anyone with a knowledge of something can educate another on whatever it is they may know (or think they know). However, as an educator with an advanced degree, I find this problematic, as the mkp should also be skilled in proper educational techniques if they truly believe what it is they are teaching and want to do a good job at it (and I mean training done by licensed educators, not just in-house training). And I don't recommend this just for mkp, but any others who plan on educating others. And my first recommendation for mkp is to recognize that a one-size-fits-all LGAT approach is not the most effective way to educate--nor does it promote independent and critical thinking. Any educational model research in the last 30 years will tell them that. So perhaps mkp needs to do more research on effective educational techniques? ;-)

Thanks for your question. mkp's slippery rhetoric here goes unnoticed by many.

I do see that these sites are different but you guys are mixed up about sites!
I keep telling you, that the People I spoke to, (THE ONES WHO NEVER REPLIED TO MY QUESTIONS AND QUIT POSTING) WERE ON THIS SITE! THE RICK ROSSES SITE! I am not talking about PP

I hope this clears things up a bit! And instead of everybody telling me why, so and so left this site or that site!
try going back and answering my questions here! Thanks
[/b]

Quote
what2do
Thank you RR. Each board has its own reasons for being there. I am tired of hearing of Xwarrior's board. I post on both places, but each has its own value.

No, this isn't about boards and certainly each has it's place. However, we can't escape the fact that both boards have overlapping members and subject matter and tend to track one another very closely. I assume our Moderator is urging us to refrain from posts that are solely focused on the other board.

More importantly, though, are the questions of honesty, openess and balance. I trust that those qualities are what we all seek in these discussions. Using the other board (or this one) as an example in the course of a post may be necessary to making a point in achieving that end.

Interestingly, I think the whole purpose of these "Boards" could use a thorough re-examining by all of its users. My take thus far (and this is true of most of the net - not just here) is that nobody is convincing nobody. The anti-MKP folks cannot be convinced that MKP is anything other than what they think it is, and the pro-MKP camp continues to try to prove that despite some warts, they are not contributing to the ultimate downfall of society and marriage.

Nobody seems to be listening and everyone appears to be talking.

If we were to be rigorously honest, is there really any [b:31f317bc33]true[/b:31f317bc33] interest in finding a common ground or at least a place of civil debate? The evidence suggests otherwise.

The funny thing is that there really are some fairly straightforward truths here:

Nobody wins. Nobody.

MKP will always be Evil.

MKP will always be Good.

And that's the truth...

for somebody...

[b:31f317bc33]Firethorne[/b:31f317bc33]