Larry Sarner: Advocate of Censorship Today (ACT)

Larry Sarner and his colleagues, Linda Rosa, Jean Mercer, and Monica Pignotti consider many truths to be inconvenient, so they have gone to great lengths to censor them.

For example:

Larry W. Sarner’s involvement in extensive litigation after the collapse of a venture to design and deploy “better” voting machines

Linda Rosa’s participation in the bankruptcy litigation that was associated with the voting machine litigation

Jean Mercer’s reliance on accounts provided by “wayward radish” even though many of these accounts have been shown to be inconsistent

Monica Pignotti’s professional career-it seems to have consisted of a considerable amount of practice of Thought Field Therapy and Voice Technology and there is little, if any evidence to support her claim of “debunking” quack medical devices

The fact that Charly D. Miller’s website, once referred to as “incisive” is no longer in operation

Sarner and his colleagues spend almost all of their time attacking licensed therapists, and then questioning the licensing process. They do nothing constructive.

Larry Sarner Fears The Truth!

Larry Sarner is affiliated with a so-called advocacy group.

Recently, blogs that were certainly supportive of this group, if not operated by it, were suspended by WordPress for repeated violations of the WordPress terms of service.

Larry Sarner, as reported elsewhere, called for nothing less than the excoriation of WordPress!

An attempt to set this organization’s record straight on Wikipedia has been temporarily thwarted by one of Sarner’s supporters.

Specifically, the following information had been added:

1. Larry Sarner, Linda Rosa, and Jean Mercer are not, and have never been, licensed mental health professionals.
2. In the late 1990s, Larry Sarner was involved in a failed business venture to develop and deploy voting machines.
3. His machines did not work, the result was litigation. Sarner lost every case. He and Linda Rosa were involved in bankruptcy proceedings.
4. Sarner filed an appeal, alleging a conspiracy against him. The court refused to hear his argument.

This information is public and readily accessible. An exhaustive search of state databases did not turn up any licenses for Sarner, Rosa, or Mercer.

The litigation is a matter of public record, as are the patents Sarner filed as a result of the failed venture.

Sarner and his colleagues are quite content to make use of resources such as WordPress, LiveJournal, and WikiPedia when they approve of what is being said. They become outraged when dissenting views are presented, or “inconvenient facts” about them revealed.

Why does Larry Sarner fear the truth?

What other secrets are he and his organization hiding?

Larry Sarner and the Cabal of Secrecy

Larry Sarner would like for you to believe that he is for complete freedom of speech and absolute disclosure of information. Here’s a quote from him that shows what he really believes:

“Everything NTTSG did with UAB was part of an investigation into scientific misconduct and no aspect of that investigation will be discussed in public, or with anyone outside it, until the investigators are ready.”

(NTTSG = National Therapeutic Touch Study Group; UAB = University of Alabama, Birmingham)

It is good to know that Sarner and his cabal of investigators will safeguard this information until the world is ready for it. When the time comes, will they host the site on the Dark Tower of Quackery?

Larry Sarner Calls for the EXCORIATION of WordPress

If you go here, you can see that Larry Sarner said:

“WordPress needs to excoriated in the strongest possible terms. Obviously it is not their bottom-line that motivates them in this case, but their CONVENIENCE, especially the convenience of their STAFF. (”You have no idea of the continual complaints that are coming in…”!) Had they been concerned with their bottom-line, they would have remembered that controversy is the hallmark of blogs, and taking the role of editor-in-chief would give bloggers pause to use them as hosts. If I were an active member of the blogging community, I would be organizing a boycott of WordPress.

It is laudable that DoD is taking up the cudgel. I hope your courage is rewarded with many bloggers fleeing WordPress and it’s ilk — not just because they have to, but BEFORE they have to.

By the way, it wasn’t by “the end of day Sat, Aug 22″ that the blog was suspended. It was within hours of the early-morning warning given (by “Mark”?), certainly by 10am EDT. Interesting, an ultimatum issued in the wee hours on a weekend, and then not even waiting out the deadline given. I’ve seen exactly that kind of behavior before.”

For the sake of Project DoD, let’s hope that Sarner is not applying his expertise in designing non-working voting machines to solving their hardware calumnies.

Larry Sarner is entitled to his opinions. It is, however, clear that WordPress will not tolerate unsubstantiated claims about medical conditions or criminal histories, and that they are reluctant to refer to reputable educational institutions (in particular, one run by a state) as degree mills.

It is, however, a matter of public record that Larry Sarner’s failure(s) as an inventor of voting machines resulted in several lawsuits, all of which he lost.

Larry Sarner and Eternally Spinning Wheels

Larry Sarner holds forth on legal arguments, the nature of plagiarism, and eternally spinning wheels…

“Mr. Lippard:

You seem to be questioning more like a guardhouse lawyer for your friend than an impartial investigator. If you were the judge in this case, I would move to have you recused.

Most of your comments indicate you have put the cart before the horse. It has been a very disorderly process which you’ve launched. Let’s get it back on track.

I accused Mr. Scheiber of plagiarism (a form of scientific misconduct) in an LTE to ScRAM, though I did not use the word. I have now. Let me start with definitions of plagiarism. From the NAS report, “Responsible Science,” quoted by the Ryan Commission, plagiarism in a scientific context is “…using the ideas or words or another without giving appropriate credit. Plagiarism includes the unacknowledged use of text and ideas from published work…” The Ryan Commission specifically broadened the term”plagiarism” into the term “misappropriation,” which it defined thusly: An investigator or reviewer shall not intentionally or recklessly a) plagiarize, which shall be understood to mean the presentation of the documented words or ideas of another as his or her own, without attribution appropriate for the medium of presentation…”

Question #1 to you: Do you agree with these definitions, or do you wish to modify them in some material way?

If we cannot agree even on what is plagiarism, we will spin our wheels eternally.

When making a charge of plagiarism, the accuser must make a case for it. This means alleging a coherent set of facts from which a logical argument can be drawn that plagiarism occurred. In other words, the alleged facts must be relevant to, and sufficient for, the charge. In my LTE to ScRAM, I alleged my case against Mr. Scheiber, as precisely, narrowly, and factually as I understood it.

Question #2 to you: When and if proven to be true, are my allegations sufficient to make a case of plagiarism against Mr. Scheiber?

If you think there is a deficiency in my argument, our time is best spent either setting you right or plugging the logical holes you claim to find. Jumping ahead to proving the allegations would be a waste of time for both of us if we cannot even agree that I have a case with my allegations proven as facts.

Just considering relevancy, the Scheiber/Selby article should not have been brought into the discussion. I’m dropping it for the time being. (Though I would like to hear an explanation why the Parascope site http://www.parascope.com/articles/1196/finalrpt.htm — the one showing the “final progress report” — has suddenly been taken off the web.)

As to the question of the UAB researchers’ charges against NTTSG. That is totally off-topic. I’ve noticed this is a tactic of yours and Long’s, and it’s a great time-waster pursuing endless diversions from a bottomless gunnysack of grievances. Let’s do one thing at a time. I will say this much, though: everything NTTSG did with UAB was part of an investigation into scientific misconduct and no aspect of that investigation will be discussed in public, or with anyone outside it, until the investigators are ready.

– Larry Sarner”

Larry Sarner on the Watchman Fellowship…

A quote from Larry Sarner on the Watchman Fellowship:

“A former regional director of Watchman Fellowship was and is valued as one of the 50+ members of NTTSG, nothing more. Anticipating the next question, I will also say that Watchman Fellowship has not been a source of funds for NTTSG or for any of its activities. Further, the chairman sayeth not.
Larry Sarner
Chairman, NTTSG”

Larry Sarner and Linda Rosa: Cast Aside?

This book announcement from 2000 does not mention either Larry Sarner or Linda Rosa! Could this be the reason?

++++++++

Therapeutic Touch
Edited by Bela Scheiber and Carla Selby (2000)

In the mid-1970s a new type of therapy called “therapeutic touch” (TT) was introduced into the practice of nursing. Its proponents claimed that an energy field surrounding the body could be manipulated by skilled practitioners to produce healing effects for a wide variety of illnesses.

In light of the popularity of this new therapy (an estimated 40,000 practitioners), a rational, critical evaluation of its effectiveness is long overdue. This anthology of research articles illuminates every aspect of the subject, including the physics of the claimed “human energy field”; detailed discussions of the most recent research into the efficacy of TT; an account of the origins and history of the practice, plus a separate review of skeptics’ work to get the facts out to the public and the medical community; several reports that present the best case for this new therapy; a consideration of the ethical implications of this practice; and more. What make this volume exceptionally valuable are the rare documents in the appendix.

Scholarly yet accessible to the lay person, this authoritative review of an important but controversial new therapy will make a valuable contribution to libraries and should be of interest to anyone considering the use or practice of therapeutic touch.

Some of the contributors include Paul Bernhardt, Dale Beyerstein, Bonnie Bullough, Vern Bullough, Mary Jo Clark, Philip E. Clark, Stephan James Colgan, William Evans, Robert Glickman, Ed J. Gracely, Ray Hyman, Rebecca Long, Therese C. Meehan, Donal P. O’Mathuna, Steven Pryjmachuk, James Randi, Bela Scheiber, Carla Selby, Jack Stahlman, Michael Stanwick, Victor Stenger, Joan G. Turner, Mahlon W. Wagner, and one mystery author who is frequently cited by TT proponents.

Confounding the Doubters

It is, unfortunately, the truth that Larry Sarner tried to invent a “better” voting machine. His design failed, his investors lost money, and the result was a mess of lawsuits.

There are those who do not believe this. Fair enough. This is the summary page from PACER showing some of the litigation. If there is a conspiracy to defame Sarner, then PACER is part of it!

Since then, Sarner, and his wife, Linda Rosa (also involved in litigation) have taken to depicting themselves as “experts” in child psychology, an area in which they have no qualifications.

Sarner is, in various places, described as a cryptographer. There are, however, no references in reputable sources to his work in this field, so one must wonder if these claims are as bogus as his voting machine designs.

Sarner and Rosa also see fit to associate with Monica Pignotti. Pignotti is a former Scientologist; some time after leaving Scientology, she became a practitioner of Roger Callahan’s “Thought Field Therapy” and “Voice Technology” (both are as dubious as Scientology). She has a reputation as a repudiator; she will become an enthusiastic endorser, and then walk away and attack.

One cannot help but wonder if this will happen to Jean Mercer. Mercer is an unlicensed professor psychology. She draws a wide range of support from unlikely sources. such as Eldon Braun.

Braun is a copyright violator, something he shares with Charly D. Miller. Miller provides “content” for blogs operated by Sarner and Rosa in the form of “opinion papers” which are, lamentably, often laced with extensive amounts of copyrighted material she does not own.

If an “invention” does not work, is it still an invention?

Throughout history, many people have developed what they thought were perpetual motion machines. None of them worked. Do they still qualify as inventions? Probably not.

How about a case where someone tries to invent something, it does not work, but others have invented one that does work. Almost definitely not!

Case in point: voting machines. Larry Sarner tried his hand at inventing voting machines. They did not work, even though the project was well funded by the likes of Peter Paul Luce.

The company folded, and there was a lot of litigation.

Sarner describes himself as a mathematician. To be sure, there are many technical details to be worked out, but all he set out to do was to automate a process that’s been well understood for quite some time.

Why did he fail? Could his attachment to various pseudoscientific ideas have had something to do with it?

Sarner may or may not be a Scientologist, but he does run propaganda sites on the reprehensible topic of child torture, and these sites use techniques very similar to Scientology’s sites.

Scientology has many strange ideas. Xenu, a “galactic tyrant” used nuclear weapons to destroy alien beings trapped on Hawaii. Man evolved from clams. “Blinkers” are evil, cat like aliens that are the sworn enemies of Scientology. Calculus is useless. Calculus was not invented by Newton or Leibniz, but by Henry Luce (father of Sarner investor, Peter Paul Luce!). Radiation lurks in fat cells. Radiation sickness can be cured with vitamins.

Adhering to even a few of these ideas would give anyone, including Sarner, a rather warped world view. Maybe he saw a calico cat, thought it was a blinker, and he dropped a decimal point somewhere? Anything is possible, and Sarner is understandably reluctant to discuss the matter.

Global Warming?

Larry Sarner has many unorthodox scientific beliefs, including fundamental disagreements with the tenets and conduct of the scientific method.

Sarner is a close associate of Monica Pignotti. Pignotti is in league, ideologically, and apparently  in other ways as well, with the Competitive Enterprise Institute and Institute for Liberty.

Is it possible they are also global warming deniers, in league with the remnants of the Bush Administration?

Let’s connect some dots…

Myron Ebell is the “director of energy and global warming policy” for the the DC-based Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI).

The CEI is well-known for its public efforts to aggressively counter the scientific evidence for human-induced climate change, including an infamous set of television ads with the tag line “C02, We Call it Life.”

Since 1998, the CEI has received over $2 million in funding from oil-giant ExxonMobil. ExxonMobil is not without its own problems, possibly chief among them having to address the rapid decline of the importance of Arab nations as energy producers and the emergece of at least two anti-Arab nations, Russia and Iran, as leaders in the field.

In January 2007, ExxonMobil announced that it would no longer be funding the CEI.

Other organizations that have contributed to the CEI include tobacco giant Philip Morris, which has provided $370,000 since 1991 to the CEI for assistance in “regulatory issues.”

A 1996 Brown and Williamson memo lists the CEI as a funded organization providing research and developing public policy positions.

The Institute for Liberty is run by Andrew Langer. Langer is a frequent defender of John Berlau, who is with CEI. Berlau, like Ebell, has no scientific training. He has suggested that cars pollute more than trees. At a press conference, when asked basic scientific questions, he was insistent that a gas, when heated, “gets heavier” (whatever that was supposed to mean).

Myron Ebell and the Cooler Heads Coalition

According to Ebell’s bio, he currently serves as the chair of the “Cooler Heads Coalition.”

Cooler Heads is a project of the National Consumers Coalition, a coalition of 23 freemarket think tanks, many of them with ties to the oil-industry, including the Heartland Institute, the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow, the Pacific Research Institute and the George C. Marshall Institute.

According to their website, the mission of Cooler Heads is to “[dispel] the myths of global warming by exposing flawed economic, scientific, and risk analysis.

The Cooler Heads project is headed by the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

Myron Ebell on ExxonMobil Funding

In an October 2006 BBC interview, Ebell points out that ExxonMobil  would probably not fund the CEI if it changed its stance on global warming.

Transcript:

BBC: Myron Ebell why do you imagine that Exxon gives you money?

Ebell: You know, I think that the attempt here to claim that only the purest of the pure can engage in the public policy debate…

BBC: Please answer the question Mr. Ebell, why do you imagine they give you money?

Ebell: Because we send them letters asking them to support our general programs which… our general program is simply this: we believe in free markets and we support policies that promote less regulation of people’s daily lives.

BBC: And they would presumably not be giving you that money if they felt you for taking a different view on, say for example climate change.

Ebell: I suppose that’s right. We develop our policies and then we try to find funding.