On August 25, 2011, I was out backpacking when John M. Knapp, LMSW, my former cult-recovery therapist, began posting his public online defamation targeted at me and others in an attempt to smear his targets. Knapp posted his articles on his then non-profit website, thechsca.org. (The Center for Healing Spiritual and Cutlic Abuse)
My online friend, L*** N**, knew I was out backpacking. L*** informed Mo**** Pi******, PhD, that I was without internet service.
120 days ago, M****** P*******, B.F.W. (Big.Fucking.Whoop.) (posted below) was Knapp's sixth public assault on M***** within five days which he published on his CHSCA website.
M***** addresses Knapp's claims against her here: John Knapp, LMSW: Timeline of My Very Limited Contacts With Him .
M***** never cyberharassed Knapp.
There were never "120 days and counting," much less 22 months.
Knapp twisted a few exchanges into a 120-day harassment session.
As in Knapp's previous posts, there is falsehood after falsehood.
At one time I would have given Knapp the benefit of the doubt and would have stated he was mistaken. But not now; not after I've witnessed and experienced his calculated lies, half-truths, mistruths, blame shifting, and scapegoating.
As I've stated elsewhere, I think Knapp knew exactly what he was doing.
There are many untruths in Knapp's May, 2011, replies to Monica. I address some of them in the following list.
There are many untruths in Knapp's May, 2011, replies to Monica. I address some of them in the following list.
- Knapp feigns ignorance in his May, 2011, responses to M******. But he knew about the conflict between D***** E****** and M******. He had shared with me in November, 2009, that M***** had conflicts with folks naming S***** H***** and others.
- M****** never helped me in any way shape or form with my complaint. Prior to August, 2011, M***** and I had never discussed my relationship with Knapp nor the September, 2010, complaint I'd filed against Knapp. We only discussed these after Knapp threw M***** and I together in his online false claims in August, 2011. M***** had knowledge of my situation through my blog and through our mutual acquaintance and friend, L*** N**.
- Monica had knowledge of Knapp's borderline statement about her from L*** N**, whom I had shared the statement with. More precisely, Knapp's statement to me was, "I wouldn't be surprised if M***** has borderline personality disorder." (++See the end of this blog post for the background to Knapp's borderline statement about M*****.)
- Knapp never supplied any documentation to the NY State Office of Professional Discipline. He completely ignored all the state's requests. I was told this personally, face to face, by the investigator and prosecutor. In his August 25, 2011, article entitled Beware Ca*** We***-Cyberstalker, he stated that state investigators are "very dangerous people." Only to Knapp, I guess.
- The place I posted within a few days of Knapp's shunning me in August, 2010, was on a mental health board. I was quite confused at the time as I was trying to figure out if what had happened was therapy abuse. On that board, at that time, I posted anonymously and without using Knapp's name, changing all the names of involved parties and even changing their genders. Knapp perhaps found my posts at that time by googling some of the content from his emails to me, portions of which I had anonymously published with changed names and genders; the parties involved nor myself were identifiable.
- I never stated that I was considering taking legal action against Knapp unless Knapp equates an official complain with legal action. At some point in my anonymous posts on the mental health board I think I posted that I had filed a complaint after the I filed.
- To my knowledge, I never published Knapp's name in regard to what happened between us anywhere on my blog until March, 2011. The only place I may have posted Knapp's name one time was on my now-private blog entitled versions-the tender. If I stated Knapp's name there, I must have taken if down quickly because it was not there when I later searched. If I had stated Knapp's name there, it would not have shown up in any search engines because that blog was not listed on search engines.
- According to J** M****, J** never stated that M****** was helping me in identifying manipulations Knapp had used on me. Until August 27, 2011, M***** and I had never communicated regarding anything to do with my and Knapp's relationship. Until latter 2012, I had never communicated at all with J** M*****. (+++See the end of this blog post for more information regarding Knapp's claim of what J** M***** supposedly shared with Knapp. )
- I did not cease being Knapp's client in March, 2010. I paid him for services through June, 2010. Instead of "therapy," we called the sessions "life coaching." But they were therapy. The timeline of my and Knapp's developing and dual relationship(s) is stated in my complaint here: Complaint Overview.
- Regarding dual relationships, I do not have a problem per se with dual relationships. At the time of my and Knapp's dual relationships, I thought they were healthy, though I did have a few red flags that I chose to dismiss and rationalize. In latter 2010 and in 2011, Knapp had two other people on his non-profit staff that had been his very recent clients. One eventually resigned from the staff because Knapp had a disagreement with that client and the client wanted to keep Knapp as a "friend," so felt it best to resign. The other at-the-time recent client ended up very harmed by Knapp.
- As far as the "quid pro quo" arrangement on Knapp's former online discussion board, L*** N** addresses that on his blog here: John Knapp Blames the Victim (Part 3)
[Update with link: Knapp's license was revoked in January, 2014.]
[begin Knapp article]
Monday, 29 August 2011 22:34
M***** P*******, B.F.W., 120 DAYS Same Subject—and Counting!
Written by John M. Knapp, LMSW
Some readers have asked for more information on the P*******/W**** what-sure-looks-like-a cyberstalking attack on me personally, as well as the CHSCA.
120 days ago, M****** P*******, B.F.W. (Big.Fucking.Whoop.) wrote me out of the blue, threatening administrative action against me through the National Association of Social Works (NASW), claiming I had disparaged her professionally—a modest offense, but certainly one I would avoid.
If possible.
More stomach-churning drama, going on for the last 22 months!!! The same accusations, threats, and tortored [sic] logic—nearly verbatim.
Over. And. Fucking. Over.
________
________
M***** sent you a message.
M***** P*******
M***** P******* 11:30am May 2nd
Subject: Warning: Your unethical behavior
As per the NASW Code of Ethics, I am first approaching you to make you aware that I have learned of unethical behavior on your part. The NASW Code of Ethics states that you are not to disparage your colleagues and word has gotten back to me that you have done so on more than one occasion with regards to me. Please contact me at [email address] and let me know what, if anything you intend to do to take responsibility for this. If I don't hear from you within three days, I will be filing a formal complaint with your state board. And please don't try to say I am a "hypocrite". I criticized you, your work and articles, not personality but you have maligned me personally. If you admit this, not try to deny it (because I do have proof of it) I will consider not filing a complaint if you are willing to take responsibility for what you have done and find a way to convince me it will not happen again. Your call. I await your reply.
________
M***** P*******, MSW, PhD
From: John M. Knapp, LMSW <********@theCHSCA.org>
Subject: Got your FB note
To: [email address]
Date: Monday, May 2, 2011, 11:52 AM
M*****,
Just let me know the specifics of what you are alleging. Depending on what has been reported to you, I can respond.
To my knowledge, I've never disparaged your professional work. Frankly, I don't know anything about it.
As to the criticism of me on your mail list, I've never worried about it much. You brought up valid points, I responded to that effect, and made some changes on my website. Certainly, I don't harbor bad feelings about it.
Although, I am aware of the nature of your work with C**** W****. As reported to me, there are many ethical concerns raised for me. As I have no intention of pursuing action against you or C****, I've never approached you about them.
If you'd like we can briefly chat about that as well. Just as in the case where I've heard allegations against other colleagues, whether in the cult awareness field or not, I've asked my questions directly to the persons involved if they concern me.
I appreciate you contacting me about your concerns. As soon as I know appropriate details, I'll propose a plan to address them.
J.
John M. Knapp, LMSW
Executive Director
The Center for Healing Spiritual & Cultic Abuse
________
Date: Mon, 2 May 2011 09:10:47 -0700 (PDT)
From: M***** P******* < [email address]>
Subject: Re: Got your FB note
To: “ LMSWJohn M. Knapp” < ********@theCHSCA.org>
For starters, you just “liked” an extremely disparaging comment about me (as well as dishonest because I never wrote the words he quoted) on De**** E*****’s Facebook page. Yes, that’s right I saw it right away, as De****’ wall is public. By doing this you are aiding and abetting him. While De**** is not a professional and I cannot file a complaint about him, your jumping in with him is an issue and it also shows me where you’re coming from. As for the other comments, I will have to get permission from people involved before I let you know, but you might want to start with a public apology to me on De****’ Facebook page for piling on with him and “unliking” your “like” on that highly defamatory posting.
As for C**** W****, I don’t know what you heard, but I have done absolutely nothing wrong and I find it highly disturbing that you would even mention the possibility of taking action against a former client of yours, who, according to what she publicly stated on her own blog, has filed a complaint against you.
M***** P*******, MSW, PhD
________
Date: Mon, 02 May 2011 13:58:32 -0400
From: “John M. Knapp, LMSW” < ********@theCHSCA.org>
To: M***** P******* < [email address]>
Subject: Re: Got your FB note
M*****,
There is nothing against any ethical guideline about liking a comment. I have no idea what is going on between you and De**** and don’t care to know. De**** and I have re-acquainted ourselves after many years. I “liked” the response to a comment that doesn’t appear to make sense to me. It was funny.
I didn’t see anything disparaging in his comment. Nor do I care to hear an explanation of why you found it disparaging. That is an issue between you and De****. I’m not “aiding and abetting” anyone. I like him, I have fond memories or our long-ago correspondence, but have no idea yet of what he’s been up to over the years.
I’m not a “side-taker,” particularly not in the anti-cult arena. I’ve been careful to steer clear of a certain subsection of that community since at least 1997.
I owe a tremendous debt to J**** L***** as my exit counselor. I respect her work. I don’t agree with all of it, but I don’t pretend to have the answers. I think she represents her viewpoint very well.
Likewise, I owe a tremendous debt to S**** H***** for his generous, personal support for 16 years. He’s always made time in his busy schedule when I had a question. I respect his achievements and the help he’s given so many people through books, media, and his counseling practice. He’s given me valuable insight. I don’t agree with all of his ideas, either. That’s pretty common in most professions, I think.
I don’t take their “sides” and neither has ever asked me, too. Frankly, I’m a pretty minor player in a very small field. I can’t see that my taking sides would be of value to them or anyone else in any regard.
This is what I’ve heard about C**** W****. This is not an accusation. This is me checking in to find out from you directly your point of view. I do this not to stir things up, but to try to stop the rumor mill and its painful consequences.
I talked with J** M***** two days ago. We did some catching up. He wanted to tell me about a storm brewing on the Internet regarding me. I repeatedly told him I did not want to know, not having the time, interest, or emotional resources to get involved. Nonetheless he persisted until I managed to get off the phone. He said something to the effect that he knew you were working with C**** and poring over emails and other things helping her find patterns of manipulation.
I have no idea if this is true or just more Internet rumor. So I ask: Is it true?
BTW, I see that you have your PhD now. I apologize, I wasn’t aware you had finished up. Please accept my belated congratulations. Getting a PhD is a great accomplishment. It’s a tribute to your intelligence, your stamina, and your perseverance.
J.
________
M***** P*******
May 2, 2011 12:41 PM
I have now obtained permission from the party you made the remark to, C**** W****. She reported that you told her that I “probably had borderline personality disorder”. This is a violation on a number of levels. First, you made a highly disparaging remark about another social worker. Second, you made that remark to a client, which is an egregious boundary violation. Third, you are in no way qualified to even speculate about someone’s diagnosis who you do not even know and certainly had not formally assessed. Bottom line you used your completely unqualified and unwarranted distance “diagnosis” as a weapon to malign me to others. You were way out of line doing this and it makes me wonder who else you made similar remarks to. Please let me know how you propose to deal with this.
And PS, I had a number of years of therapy and no one ever diagnosed me with BPD or anything even remotely close to that. You are way off base.
M***** P*******, MSW, PhD
________
Date: Mon, 02 May 2011 14:25:15 -0400
From: “John M. Knapp, LMSW” < ********@theCHSCA.org>
To: M***** P******* <
Subject: Re: Got your FB note
M*****,
I sincerely doubt I ever said any such thing to C****. I don’t know you. I have no basis to make such a judgment. I’ve written a few times over the years that it’s simply not possible to diagnose another individual through their writings, public persona, or whatever.
I have no idea when she is reporting I said this remark. C**** ceased being my client in March 2010.
If it in some way it would help, I could post something neutral wherever you’d like saying I have no judgment about your work, character, or mental condition as I don’t know you. I’d like to add a bit about my belief that is not possible from writings and so forth.
I don’t think I’ve ever said that about you to anyone else. I’m pretty sure I didn’t say it to C****. It just doesn’t sound like something I would say. I do remember a conversation about you. She inquired about some of the postings on your list regarding me supposedly practicing illegally. I explained my situation and pointed her to both the Office of the Professions and an association addressing the issue for all New York LMSWs. I definitely didn’t offer a diagnosis about you or anyone else I know. I treat people and pain. I know my DSM-IV well enough and use it as a jumping off point for trying to understand a new client—or to find possible treatments.
I’m sure I mentioned that you had questioned S**** H***** about something or other on the Freedom of Mind list and that had ended badly. I had no details whatsoever about that situation other than something happened. I mentioned it because I tried to explain to C**** that I believed your list was about exposing abuses and questionable practices by practitioners in the anti-cult world. Later I read on your list that you and S**** had had a meeting of the minds. I had no interest in the whole thing so never looked into it.
I don’t understand your goals in the very little I know of your work, which stems from the time I was receiving the postings from your list. I’ll bet more than once I said to someone, “I don’t know what winds her clock.” I use that expression a lot. I think I picked it up in my childhood. It has nothing to do with mental illness or capacity or anything similar. It has to do with motivation for achieving something. It seems to me that anyone who achieves recognition in a field has an unusual something giving them the energy and desire. Could be personal trauma, or the experience of a family member or friend, something like that. I wonder what wound Gandhi’s clock, Hitler’s, Jesus’s, Jung, George W. Bush.........
I can think of one time that I referred to someone’s “obviously borderline behavior.” I regret that. (It wasn’t you, at all.) It’s definitely not my usual thing. I pretty much doubt the validity of the whole DSM IV diagnosis structure and refer to psycho-words as the new hate speech. I’ve written about that, too.
Anyway, by all means, if you have other instances of times that you have heard I’ve disparaged you, please bring them to my attention. I’m not requiring that you identify the person, necessarily. Give me the quote as best you remember, the general time frame, and I’ll try to address it. If in that discussion I feel for some reason I need to know more specifics, I’ll ask.
J.
John M. Knapp, LMSW
Executive Director
The Center for Healing Spiritual & Cultic Abuse
________
Date: Mon, 02 May 2011 14:35:04 -0400
From: “John M. Knapp, LMSW” <*******@theCHSCA.org>
To: Monica P******* <
Subject: Re: Got your FB note
M*****,
As my signature states, please feel free to share anything I write publicly or privately under the Creative Commons license.
May I have your permission to allow Doug M***** to read them? He’s on our Board of Directors and takes care of ethical questions or charges. I feel I need to clue him in.
J.
John M. Knapp, LMSW
Executive Director
The Center for Healing Spiritual & Cultic Abuse
________
Date: Mon, 2 May 2011 11:54:59 -0700 (PDT)
From: M***** P******* <
To: “ LMSWJohn M. Knapp” <*******(@theCHSCA.org>
This whole situation has gotten messy precisely because people have been going to third parties rather than dealing directly with one another. If you feel the need to get a third party involved, I would prefer it not be your partner who would obviously has a bias in your favor, but rather, a neutral party. Perhaps the best thing to do is just to let C****’s complaint to the board run its course. And no, I did not do what J** M***** said I did. I haven’t even discussed this matter with J** and find it outrageous he would be coming to you with this kind of lie. C**** had made her decisions and had the complaint written up, long before I ever even knew about this.
M***** P*******, MSW, PhD
________
Date: Mon, 2 May 2011 11:57:47 -0700 (PDT)
From: M***** P******* <
Subject: Re: Got your FB note
To: “ LMSWJohn M. Knapp” <********@theCHSCA.org>
John,
I suggest you review the NASW Code of Ethics. Someone doesn’t cease to be a client on the date you terminate therapy with them. The dual relationship part applies after the person has ceased being a client as well as during and unlike the APA code of ethics, which has a 2-year time limit, a client-therapist relationship endures for life.
M***** P*******, MSW, PhD
________
Date: Mon, 02 May 2011 15:18:52 -0400
From: “John M. Knapp, LMSW” <*******@theCHSCA.org>
Subject: Re: Got your FB note
M*****,
I’m not concerned about the complaint. Office of Professionals asked recently for some documentation and I’m going to provide it.
I asked for permission to share the emails because I’m required to let know Doug know about complaints. That’s it. Doug knows all about C****’s complaint. Your complaint is separate.
You made a complaint. The easiest way to let him know about it is to simply show him our emails.
I’m not looking for a third party in the discussions.
Thanks for clearing that up about J**’s allegation.
That’s all I was looking for.
J.
John M. Knapp, LMSW
Executive Director
The Center for Healing Spiritual & Cultic Abuse
________
Date: Mon, 2 May 2011 12:21:13 -0700 (PDT)
From: M****** P*******
Subject: Re: Got your FB note
To: “ LMSWJohn M. Knapp” <********@theCHSCA.org>
I have not made a complaint to your state board. What I am doing is following the correct protocol and seeing if I can discuss this with you first.
________
Date: Mon, 02 May 2011 16:37:34 -0400
From: “John M. Knapp, LMSW” <*********@theCHSCA.org>
To: M***** P******* <[email address]>
Subject: Re: Got your FB note
M*****,
Our understandings of the NASW Code are different. No matter what the time limit, for there to be a dual relationship, there must be a quid pro quo. I didn’t pay C****. She didn’t pay me. Each one of us was volunteering—including, of course, me. We didn’t trade services. The purpose of the forum in question had no effect on my practice whatsoever. It was for professionals and activists only. It was private, invitation only. There simply was no way to use the forum to leverage it to my advantage.
Volunteering for a nonprofit undertaking is not unheard of between therapists and former clients. In fact, the VA frequently has patients who cannot afford services work for them in trade—a practice I feel is questionable at best. But in small communities, such as LGBTI rights, it’s almost impossible to avoid. Zur has written on this. I can try to dig up references for you.
C**** did not report to me. When I set it up, I gave each of us one vote. The two of them had the power to overrule me at any point. So, in some senses, I was responsible to her just as much as she was responsible to either me or L***.
No quid pro quo. No dual relationship. Trust me, I sought supervision throughout from the question of C****’s volunteering, through the messy breakup, and most recently since I first heard of her complaint. Whether through misunderstanding or misperception, I feel she has misrepresented what occurred, largely through selective quoting of emails. Although I do not doubt for a minute that C**** is acting in good faith and representing her feelings and understanding.
She herself wrote 08/06/10, under a pseudonym, she didn’t perceive the incident to be therapist abuse:
Thanks Irma Jean!
I may peruse around later when I have time. :-)
And thank you for the empathy as well. It is confusing and distressing. Knowing myself as I do, it will take some time for me to maneuver through it. :-/
BTW: I googled a couple sentences from the emails and they are searchable and now cached. So the therapist may well find them; the therapist knows I am quite present on the web and utilize it as a source for help and input. But, I don’t care at this point if the therapist would find the cached posts. The situation is what it is. To my knowledge I haven’t been untruthful and have endeavored to state the facts as I recall and see them. I also posted emails without names and changed something else for anonymity of the parties involved.
*******************
As I’ve pondered more the entire situation, taking in all the context of the previous weeks/months as well, I don’t think it was therapist abuse. I don’t think this therapist abuses their clients. They didn’t abuse me in any way, shape, or form during therapy. They helped me tremendously.
That said, the final circumstance had the same effect as abuse, intentional or unintentional. The effect on my psyche is what it is. I am the only one that can redirect that. That (redirection toward wellness) is solely my responsibility.
At this point, I think the dual relationship experiment was entered without enough definitive outlines. I think this recent incident was a HUGE, HUGE miscommunication disaster (more than one) in all the email communications and people became defensive. [That is one thing I don’t like about communications via text...emails, forums, etc., and have learned to endeavor to be sensitive to ... though I fall short too.] There was also some misunderstandings and interpretations (apparently) in some voice and Skype communications.
I am also taking a break from the activism I was involved in. I imagine I’ll take it up (in small doses) later. The reason for the activism is because of experiences that were a huge chunk of my life...the majority of my life. So I am rethinking all that as to what is healthy for me at this point and how to approach that aspect of my life.
Apologies for my ramble. I feel I have taken much more than I have given here in these few posts on this forum. This tiny outlet has been an excellent place for me to do some processing and to get a bit of feedback within the tiny bit of context that I shared.
It seems like a great place ya’ll have here. Not perfect, I’m sure. ;) And that’s good! Besides....I have grown to detest ‘perfectionism’ and hope I never go back to such a mindset. (Yay!)
Thanks again....
http://community.mentalhelp.net/archive/index.php/t-5007.html
No matter how noble my intentions, however, and my attempts to avoid hurt and pain for any of us, C**** has been hurt. I have no idea how to address that.
When she posted within a few days of our three-way disagreement that she was considering legal action against me, I consulted my supervisor and a lawyer. They advised me in no uncertain terms not to contact C**** in any way.
I know C**** to be an intelligent, creative, talented, empathic individual. I certainly have been devastated by the pain she describes going through. I grieve for our friendship. It was difficult for me to function for several weeks after this whole thing. Most recently, as it has been brought up again, the wound is fresh again.
More importantly, I’ve certainly changed how I practice to guard against this happening again. We’re still working on ethical guidelines for our Center, but pending review by people more knowledgeable than any of us, we are not accepting clients of any provider for a minimum of a year after services ended, and no former client will report to their former therapist. In actuality, we’re not accepting former client of mine as volunteers at all as we seek counsel on this.
If you have specific questions you want answered, by all means continue to contact me.
J.
John M. Knapp, LMSW
Executive Director
The Center for Healing Spiritual & Cultic Abuse
________
Date: Mon, 02 May 2011 16:38:46 -0400
From: “John M. Knapp, LMSW” <*********@theCHSCA.org>
To: M**** P******* <[email address]>
Subject: Re: Got your FB note
And I thank you for that.
As best I could, I tried to answer your question.
By all means, if you come across further problems with C**** or anyone else, I’ll try to do the same.
J.
John M. Knapp, LMSW
Executive Director
The Center for Healing Spiritual & Cultic Abuse
________
Gentle reader,
You’d think the issue would be safely put to bed, right?
Not on Cyberstalking Planet. M***** P*******, Ph.Fucking.Unemployed.D., chooses to rip open the scab, yet again!—more than 4 months later!—as you began reading here: Beware Carol Welch—Cyberstalker!.
To: “ LMSWJohn M. Knapp” <********@theCHSCA.org>
I have not made a complaint to your state board. What I am doing is following the correct protocol and seeing if I can discuss this with you first.
________
Date: Mon, 02 May 2011 16:37:34 -0400
From: “John M. Knapp, LMSW” <*********@theCHSCA.org>
To: M***** P******* <[email address]>
Subject: Re: Got your FB note
M*****,
Our understandings of the NASW Code are different. No matter what the time limit, for there to be a dual relationship, there must be a quid pro quo. I didn’t pay C****. She didn’t pay me. Each one of us was volunteering—including, of course, me. We didn’t trade services. The purpose of the forum in question had no effect on my practice whatsoever. It was for professionals and activists only. It was private, invitation only. There simply was no way to use the forum to leverage it to my advantage.
Volunteering for a nonprofit undertaking is not unheard of between therapists and former clients. In fact, the VA frequently has patients who cannot afford services work for them in trade—a practice I feel is questionable at best. But in small communities, such as LGBTI rights, it’s almost impossible to avoid. Zur has written on this. I can try to dig up references for you.
C**** did not report to me. When I set it up, I gave each of us one vote. The two of them had the power to overrule me at any point. So, in some senses, I was responsible to her just as much as she was responsible to either me or L***.
No quid pro quo. No dual relationship. Trust me, I sought supervision throughout from the question of C****’s volunteering, through the messy breakup, and most recently since I first heard of her complaint. Whether through misunderstanding or misperception, I feel she has misrepresented what occurred, largely through selective quoting of emails. Although I do not doubt for a minute that C**** is acting in good faith and representing her feelings and understanding.
She herself wrote 08/06/10, under a pseudonym, she didn’t perceive the incident to be therapist abuse:
Thanks Irma Jean!
I may peruse around later when I have time. :-)
And thank you for the empathy as well. It is confusing and distressing. Knowing myself as I do, it will take some time for me to maneuver through it. :-/
BTW: I googled a couple sentences from the emails and they are searchable and now cached. So the therapist may well find them; the therapist knows I am quite present on the web and utilize it as a source for help and input. But, I don’t care at this point if the therapist would find the cached posts. The situation is what it is. To my knowledge I haven’t been untruthful and have endeavored to state the facts as I recall and see them. I also posted emails without names and changed something else for anonymity of the parties involved.
*******************
As I’ve pondered more the entire situation, taking in all the context of the previous weeks/months as well, I don’t think it was therapist abuse. I don’t think this therapist abuses their clients. They didn’t abuse me in any way, shape, or form during therapy. They helped me tremendously.
That said, the final circumstance had the same effect as abuse, intentional or unintentional. The effect on my psyche is what it is. I am the only one that can redirect that. That (redirection toward wellness) is solely my responsibility.
At this point, I think the dual relationship experiment was entered without enough definitive outlines. I think this recent incident was a HUGE, HUGE miscommunication disaster (more than one) in all the email communications and people became defensive. [That is one thing I don’t like about communications via text...emails, forums, etc., and have learned to endeavor to be sensitive to ... though I fall short too.] There was also some misunderstandings and interpretations (apparently) in some voice and Skype communications.
I am also taking a break from the activism I was involved in. I imagine I’ll take it up (in small doses) later. The reason for the activism is because of experiences that were a huge chunk of my life...the majority of my life. So I am rethinking all that as to what is healthy for me at this point and how to approach that aspect of my life.
Apologies for my ramble. I feel I have taken much more than I have given here in these few posts on this forum. This tiny outlet has been an excellent place for me to do some processing and to get a bit of feedback within the tiny bit of context that I shared.
It seems like a great place ya’ll have here. Not perfect, I’m sure. ;) And that’s good! Besides....I have grown to detest ‘perfectionism’ and hope I never go back to such a mindset. (Yay!)
Thanks again....
http://community.mentalhelp.net/archive/index.php/t-5007.html
No matter how noble my intentions, however, and my attempts to avoid hurt and pain for any of us, C**** has been hurt. I have no idea how to address that.
When she posted within a few days of our three-way disagreement that she was considering legal action against me, I consulted my supervisor and a lawyer. They advised me in no uncertain terms not to contact C**** in any way.
I know C**** to be an intelligent, creative, talented, empathic individual. I certainly have been devastated by the pain she describes going through. I grieve for our friendship. It was difficult for me to function for several weeks after this whole thing. Most recently, as it has been brought up again, the wound is fresh again.
More importantly, I’ve certainly changed how I practice to guard against this happening again. We’re still working on ethical guidelines for our Center, but pending review by people more knowledgeable than any of us, we are not accepting clients of any provider for a minimum of a year after services ended, and no former client will report to their former therapist. In actuality, we’re not accepting former client of mine as volunteers at all as we seek counsel on this.
If you have specific questions you want answered, by all means continue to contact me.
J.
John M. Knapp, LMSW
Executive Director
The Center for Healing Spiritual & Cultic Abuse
________
Date: Mon, 02 May 2011 16:38:46 -0400
From: “John M. Knapp, LMSW” <*********@theCHSCA.org>
To: M**** P******* <[email address]>
Subject: Re: Got your FB note
And I thank you for that.
As best I could, I tried to answer your question.
By all means, if you come across further problems with C**** or anyone else, I’ll try to do the same.
J.
John M. Knapp, LMSW
Executive Director
The Center for Healing Spiritual & Cultic Abuse
________
Gentle reader,
You’d think the issue would be safely put to bed, right?
Not on Cyberstalking Planet. M***** P*******, Ph.Fucking.Unemployed.D., chooses to rip open the scab, yet again!—more than 4 months later!—as you began reading here: Beware Carol Welch—Cyberstalker!.
[end Knapp article]
_____
Click here to continue: For the Record: Part Ten, Facebook Dialog Number Two
_____++ Background to Knapp's borderline statement to me about M*****
In the fall of 2009, I googled "anti-cult cults" and found a discussion board entitled "Anti-cult Controversies." The board was put together by M******. This was my first time ever reading any of M*****'s writings. They caught my interest, so I joined the discussion board and posted. Unknown to me, Knapp was a member of that online discussion board.
I ended up having a disagreement with M***** and one other person on the board. I was surprised by the disagreement, but we worked it out in private. As I was sharing my feelings about the incident in a therapy session with Knapp, he stated that from what he knows and has heard about M****** that he "wouldn't be surprised if she has borderline personality disorder."
My conversation with Knapp that day was not about whether or not he was practicing legally (as he states in his article posted above). I knew he was practicing legally because I had checked the NY state licensing site. Our discussion was about my feelings regarding the disagreement involving me on Monica's board.
At the time I was surprised by Knapp's borderline comment because he had so often stated that mental health diagnoses should not be used as labels against people. I didn't repeat Knapp's statement until over a year later, after Knapp cut me off in September, 2010. At that time I told L*** N** and C**** G********.
Knapp made a similar borderline statement later about L*** N**. In an email to me in August, 2010, Knapp stated that L*** was "an apparent severe borderline."
In the over two years that I knew Knapp, I never recall hearing him say, "I don't know what winds his/her clock."
________I ended up having a disagreement with M***** and one other person on the board. I was surprised by the disagreement, but we worked it out in private. As I was sharing my feelings about the incident in a therapy session with Knapp, he stated that from what he knows and has heard about M****** that he "wouldn't be surprised if she has borderline personality disorder."
My conversation with Knapp that day was not about whether or not he was practicing legally (as he states in his article posted above). I knew he was practicing legally because I had checked the NY state licensing site. Our discussion was about my feelings regarding the disagreement involving me on Monica's board.
At the time I was surprised by Knapp's borderline comment because he had so often stated that mental health diagnoses should not be used as labels against people. I didn't repeat Knapp's statement until over a year later, after Knapp cut me off in September, 2010. At that time I told L*** N** and C**** G********.
Knapp made a similar borderline statement later about L*** N**. In an email to me in August, 2010, Knapp stated that L*** was "an apparent severe borderline."
In the over two years that I knew Knapp, I never recall hearing him say, "I don't know what winds his/her clock."
+++ Information regarding Knapp's claim to J** M******'s statements
L*** N** shared with me what Knapp had shared with M***** in May, 2011. That is that J** M***** had shared that M***** was helping me identify Knapp's manipulations. I asked L***, "Why would J** say that?" L*** responded, "I don't think J** did say that. I think Knapp is lying."
L*** was right.
I spoke with J** for the first time in my life in latter 2012. I asked J** about Knapp's claim. J** told me it was false; J** never stated what Knapp claimed that J** had stated.
I believe J** any day over believing Knapp.
L*** was right.
I spoke with J** for the first time in my life in latter 2012. I asked J** about Knapp's claim. J** told me it was false; J** never stated what Knapp claimed that J** had stated.
I believe J** any day over believing Knapp.
_____
Click here to continue: For the Record: Part Ten, Facebook Dialog Number Two
_____
No comments:
Post a Comment