Dr Phil promotes "Satanic Ritual Abuse" conspiracy theory

[Altus]

Originally Posted by Dismember

I don't know if you've ever searched their website, but Tate Publishing has a LOT of "true" stories like this.

On the Facebook page for "And the Angel Rocked Me," the owner says this:

[b]

Jon Leiberman also did a show with Judy Byington. It's hard for me to believe that someone connected to the Howard Stern show would give this lunacy positive press but that's apparently what's going on. The interview is on the 8th.. maybe it's worth sending Mr. Leiberman an email and letting him know he's encouraging dangerous lunacy.

Thanks for the info, Orphia!

ETA: Here is Jon Leiberman's contact page.

Ah, I see it's Leiberman, not Stern. Since he does voice-overs, I would guess he is selling this woman an interview package. I used to work at a job where news reporters would do this type of stuff on the side. They'd call you up saying they wanted to profile your company. You'd think, "Hey, great..." until you asked a few more questions and realized they were charging for their cred.

So, Tate hit her for $4,000, now Leiberman is probably going to sock her for another few. How much, Judy? I know you're reading. Kinda silent these days Ms. Byington, Merrill, Weindorf

Maybe I should contact ol' Joe and see what it will cost to promote my memories of the days on the Ark. I have vivid, vivid recollections of those days. The man with the long beard...the staff...talking to us animals. And there was the visit from the aliens. They wanted me. They loved my cranial projection. Noah did not want to give me and my partner up, so he convinced them to take the dinosaurs on their "ship"---Betty and Barney...from the Hills. We never heard from them again. Nobody can prove to me that it did not happen...therefore, it is TRUE!

[Dismember]

Originally Posted by Altus

Kinda silent these days Ms. Byington, Merrill, Weindorf

She's posting in Mikayla's thread.

Originally Posted by Judy Byington, LCSW, MSW, ret.

You don't know any of us, have never talked to any of us and making things up only shows what kind of a person you really are. ......... You don't know or have ever talked to Jenny's sisters, don't know or have ever talked to me, don't know or have ever talked to Jenny, don't have any personal knowledge of any interaction of any of us over the last 20 years. Nothing.

Here's the thing about Judy Byington. While any objective person can see that she's been stretching the truth, she makes her statements in such a way that I can usually see how she can convince herself that she's being more or less truthful. Like this bit with the UAG, for instance. I can see her convincing herself that some phone calls, some emails, and maybe some trips to the UAG drop off her "research" counts as "working as a consultant" and damn anyone who tries to tell her otherwise.

But what she said in those quotes is just pure, unadulterated BS. She knows that Doug and Altus were both there participating in that discussion when Jenny's sister Susan was putting Judy in the hot-seat.

I've just lost whatever tiny bit of sympathy I once had for her.

[Altus]

Originally Posted by Dismember

She's posting in Mikayla's thread.

Thanks for the tip!

[Orphia Nay]

Just read those comments from the link onwards.

Who is McCarthy, and how did he rip off Judy?

[Altus]

Originally Posted by Orphia Nay

Just read those comments from the link onwards.

Who is McCarthy, and how did he rip off Judy?

http://mccarthycreative.com/

A real literary agent does not hook you up with a vanity publisher who charges $4,000. This is almost at the level of poetic justice!

[Dismember]

Originally Posted by Orphia Nay

Just read those comments from the link onwards.

Orphia, did you see this? I just now caught it. I can barely get through Mikayla's posts half the time.

_____
Mikayla says: In Orphia Nay's "Review". She/he claims that she/he received an email from the Utah Attorney General's Office stating that, "The Utah AG has not had any consultants on satanic crime since 2006 or any time, and certainly has not used Byington in any capacity including as a consultant, ever." Allow me to emphasize the "or any time". There is access to the Report of the Utah State Task Force on Ritual Abuse (1992) online at the Utah Governor's Commission for Women and Families. It is certainly no secret that the Utah Attorney General's Office has done investigative work on ritual abuse. There is a great deal of (online even) literature regarding the Governor's Task Force on Ritual Abuse. What I am pointing out here is that Orphia is a LIAR!!! You see, no one from the Attorney General's office would say "The Utah AG has not had any consultants on satanic crime... [at] any time" because they HAVE. Judy Byington claimed to be a consultant for Utah Attorney General Special Investigations Section Chief Charles Haussler, not their office.

_______

The entire Amazon DID/SRA crowd is a study in self-deception.

ETA - I see your responses now, Orphia - you're awesome

[Orphia Nay]

Yes, Dismember, I just commented at Amazon on that gibberish of Mikayla's.

She seems to think that investigations require consultants. In this case, consultants / experts in something that doesn't exist.

[ddt]

Originally Posted by Dismember

There is access to the Report of the Utah State Task Force on Ritual Abuse (1992) online at the Utah Governor's Commission for Women and Families. It is certainly no secret that the Utah Attorney General's Office has done investigative work on ritual abuse. There is a great deal of (online even) literature regarding the Governor's Task Force on Ritual Abuse.

Mikayla refers several times to this report in her posts at Amazon.

You can indeed find the 1992 Report of the Utah State Task Force at several sites, e.g., at Scribd. What she fails to mention is what the report actually said and what the follow-up was.

The 1992 Task Force Report recommended that a special investigative unit would be set up in the AG's office to investigate SRA. That was done: $ 250,000 was allotted, and 2 persons full-time engaged to investigate SRA. These persons looked at all allegations of SRA within Utah that were known, for 2.5 years, and then published their report in 1995, titled "Ritual Crime in the State of Utah". You can find that report, e.g., via the Religious Tolerance site, together with their scathing critique. Good or bad report is even irrelevant; in the end it's the result that counts, and unsurprisingly, the investigators came up with zero, zilch, nada, nothing.

ETA: they found one case of actual abuse by a group, the Zion Society. But no evidence that the abuse was either sexual or ritual, let alone "satanic": the group was Christian.
After the report was published, a woman going under the pseudonym of Rachel Hopkins came forward. She was abused by her parents, and claimed ritual abuse. Her parents confessed to the abuse, but never to the "ritual" aspect of it.

[Orphia Nay]

Well said, my penguin friend!

[Dismember]

Dr. Phil show for Friday, January 11th, 2013:

...... Then, Jenny is a 56-year-old mother of three who says she suffers from dissociative identity disorder, formally known as multiple personality disorder. She says she has 22 “alters,” who she calls “parts of me.” Jenny reveals the traumatic childhood experiences that she believes caused her to take on multiple personalities. And, Jenny’s son, Robert, 30, shares what life was like growing up with Jenny. Then, Jenny’s therapist, Judy, who wrote the book, 22 Faces, based on Jenny’s journals and their sessions together, joins the show to defend herself against accusations that she may be exploiting her patient. Go inside the world of real-life families rocked by mental illness in this all-new Dr. Phil!

[Orphia Nay]

Originally Posted by Dismember

Dr. Phil show for Friday, January 11th, 2013:

...... Then, Jenny is a 56-year-old mother of three who says she suffers from dissociative identity disorder, formally known as multiple personality disorder. She says she has 22 “alters,” who she calls “parts of me.” Jenny reveals the traumatic childhood experiences that she believes caused her to take on multiple personalities. And, Jenny’s son, Robert, 30, shares what life was like growing up with Jenny. Then, Jenny’s therapist, Judy, who wrote the book, 22 Faces, based on Jenny’s journals and their sessions together, joins the show to defend herself against accusations that she may be exploiting her patient. Go inside the world of real-life families rocked by mental illness in this all-new Dr. Phil!

Oh wow.

I detect a smidgen of skepticism there (highlighted), but I don't hold out much hope.

ETA, thanks for breaking the news, Dismember!

[Roma]

Originally Posted by Orphia Nay

Oh wow.

I detect a smidgen of skepticism there (highlighted), but I don't hold out much hope.

ETA, thanks for breaking the news, Dismember!

Okay I'm holding out hope too. It doesn't look like a blanket endorsemnet anyway and there will be a word or two about exploitation, I guess so anyway.

[xterra]

Originally Posted by Orphia Nay

Oh wow.

I detect a smidgen of skepticism there (highlighted), but I don't hold out much hope.

ETA, thanks for breaking the news, Dismember!

That is probably caution rather than skepticism: "The views expressed do not reflect those of this station or the sponsor."

I would be nice if someone would post a transcript or point us to an online copy of the show. (I don't have a TV.)

ETA The "defending herself against accusations" phrase probably means someone on Phil's staff is reading either this thread or some of the other places where Orphiia, Doug, et. al. have been posting.

[Dismember]

Originally Posted by xterra

That is probably caution rather than skepticism: "The views expressed do not reflect those of this station or the sponsor."

That was my thought as well, xterra. Maybe it won't be an obvious glowing endorsement, but I doubt he'll give her the roasting she so richly deserves.

Xterra, IIRC you were considering sending an email to the UAG - did you go through with that? I sent an email on December 12th and I haven't gotten any reply. I thought I might at least get a generic "thank you for emailing us" message.

[xterra]

Originally Posted by Dismember

Xterra, IIRC you were considering sending an email to the UAG - did you go through with that? I sent an email on December 12th and I haven't gotten any reply. I thought I might at least get a generic "thank you for emailing us" message.

No I didn't. I didn't think it would do any good. The lack of response to your email seems to be confirmation of my opinion.

There appears to be too much ambiguity about Haussler's position, and too much doubt about whether Mark Shurtleff himself would be willing to make a statement, which is what I think would be required. Such an appeal requires an unequivocal. irrefutable argument and statement of fact.*

in addition, the dismissal by the Department of Professional Licensing of the complaints against Byington weakens any such argument.

I have been reading some, but not by any means all, of the various other blogs or reviews of Byington's book. What I see there leads me to believe that unfortunately there is much heat and not much light -- not for want of trying on the realists' side. But when every argument is sidetracked into "See? They are satanists," and then posts are voted down, it looks like a squabble over nothing.

However, if anyone can help me come up with a reasonably successful strategy for making the point that the UAG himself should issue an official clarifying statement, I will consider sending it from my academic email account. What I won't do is put my academic reputation (such as it is) at risk.



*Even then, I think Byington would try to put her own spin on such a statement: "The UAG knows I really am a consultant but can't say so because if it were known I would lose credibilty."

[Orphia Nay]

Originally Posted by xterra

No I didn't. I didn't think it would do any good. The lack of response to your email seems to be confirmation of my opinion.

There appears to be too much ambiguity about Haussler's position, and too much doubt about whether Mark Shurtleff himself would be willing to make a statement, which is what I think would be required. Such an appeal requires an unequivocal. irrefutable argument and statement of fact.*

in addition, the dismissal by the Department of Professional Licensing of the complaints against Byington weakens any such argument.

I have been reading some, but not by any means all, of the various other blogs or reviews of Byington's book. What I see there leads me to believe that unfortunately there is much heat and not much light -- not for want of trying on the realists' side. But when every argument is sidetracked into "See? They are satanists," and then posts are voted down, it looks like a squabble over nothing.

However, if anyone can help me come up with a reasonably successful strategy for making the point that the UAG himself should issue an official clarifying statement, I will consider sending it from my academic email account. What I won't do is put my academic reputation (such as it is) at risk.

I'd wait and see what happens on Dr Phil. If she mentions working for the Utah AG's office, that would be useful in the letter. Even if she doesn't, there might be increased publicity for her and her site (which claims she works for them) which might influence what you can put in your letter to them.

I've set up a Google Alert to notify me of new mentions of Judy Byington on the web, so hopefully I won't miss any influential sites discussing her.

Originally Posted by xterra

*Even then, I think Byington would try to put her own spin on such a statement: "The UAG knows I really am a consultant but can't say so because if it were known I would lose credibilty."

Our counter-argument to that is much stronger - that she must be lying if she mentions it because she's destroying her own credibility and revealing "top secret" information.

[Dismember]

Originally Posted by Orphia Nay

Our counter-argument to that is much stronger - that she must be lying if she mentions it because she's destroying her own credibility and revealing "top secret" information.

We'd hardly even need a counter argument.

If the UAG put out an official statement that Judy Byington is not a consultant and she insisted on claiming otherwise, I'd bet most people would dismiss her as a crackpot and her supporters as gullible fools or liars, without any help from us.

I didn't say anything in my email to the UAG about making an official statement, but I do wish I'd have mentioned that she was scheduled to be on the Dr. Phil show. I would think that since Judy is getting some significant publicity now, the last thing they'll want to be associated with is an unhinged woman who's openly trying to launch another satanic panic. In that respect, the more people willing to write in and ask about her affiliations, the better, because it may convince them that a public statement is necessary. I'm just speculating, though.

It's worth repeating that Byington has yet to update her Dr. Phil page - could she be waiting until after the show airs? And as Altus mentioned, the "coming events" calendar has been removed completely.

[Dismember]

Here's an excerpt of the excellent one-star review posted by "Garnet."

Originally Posted by Garnet

....In fact, none of that part of the book makes any sense. Jenny herself only said her Satanic mind-control master was the "Old Man," and it is the author of the book who, for some reason, states that he was the infamous Dr Green or Dr Greenbaum, kingpin of the super-secret and uber-powerful Satanic conspiracy and who apparently was a teenage Jew in the Nazi camps when he was taught his torture and mind-control abilities that he has been putting to use for Satanists ever since. How a man who was a teenager at the end of WW2 and so would be only in his late 30's by the early 1960's could be seen as an "Old Man" is one question. ....

..... The author also shows a sublime ignorance (or should be be, indifference) of history in declaiming that Hitler was mentored by Crowley, a statement that has no basis in reality and that can easily researched and proved to be a baseless rumor. Another piece of ludicrous history is found in her comments that the Qenites Tribe were Satanists. Again, research shows them to be a tribe that was friendly with the Israelites and that Moses himself married into them. There is even speculation by scholars that the name Yahweh came from this tribe. Over and over again, the author displays a pitiful lack of rational thought and even the most basic research skills. .....

[cosmicaug]

Originally Posted by Dismember

Here's an excerpt of the excellent one-star review posted by "Garnet."

Someone wrote in that review's comment section purporting to be one of Jenny Hill's sons, Jason Steffen:

Originally Posted by Jason Steffen

Jenny Hill's son Jason here. Another one of her sons, Robert (my brother), will be on the Dr. Phil show this Friday the 11th of January to discuss this "book". I can verify that Jenny, my Mom, has not received any money from this book and from what I understand, isn't going to. She is currently living on disability and she suffers from mental illness. It is very difficult pinpointing exactly what she suffers from because she lies quite often, possibly as a symptom of her mental illness. She has at various times claimed that she has had schizophrenia, cancer affecting her thinking, bipolar disorder, and of course DID or multiple personality disorder. We all of course love her and try to help her the best way that we can, but this book is causing lots of problems for her, as she has been hospitalized for anxiety/depression twice in the last month. Judy has in the past encouraged Jenny to sue her son Robert for making a documentary about her. She also took Jenny to some very expensive houses and told her that she could live that life style if only she signed her life rights away. Judy has invaded my mother's and our family's privacy and we all united against her and her "book". I cannot say for sure if my mother has had DID. I also can't say for sure if she has had "false memory syndrome". I do know that she is mentally ill and is being taken advantage of.

Sincerely her son,
Jason

[cosmicaug]

From that same comment section:

Originally Posted by Judy Byington

Before Robert's film was even made I had signed over my film and literary rights to Jenny's story to a New York literary agent who was already in the process of presenting them to publishing companies. If he and I were to spend time and money publishing Jenny's story we needed to be assured that we would be the only ones granted the legal rights to her story. Thus, Jenny and I entered into a contract where I would have sole proprietship of her story. This is done all the time in the industry and protects the author, the protagonist, the literary agent and the story.

Hasn't she said elsewhere or implied that this was not the arrangement when Jenny's sister's comments in a screen capture from some website's comment section about this have been brought up or am I imagining this?

[Orphia Nay]

Originally Posted by cosmicaug

Someone wrote in that review's comment section purporting to be one of Jenny Hill's sons, Jason Steffen:

Wow!

I note, "Judy has invaded my mother's and our family's privacy and we all united against her and her "book"."

Looks like the Dr Phil show could be VERY interesting.

[Orphia Nay]

Originally Posted by cosmicaug

From that same comment section:

Originally Posted by Judy Byington

Before Robert's film was even made I had signed over my film and literary rights to Jenny's story to a New York literary agent who was already in the process of presenting them to publishing companies. If he and I were to spend time and money publishing Jenny's story we needed to be assured that we would be the only ones granted the legal rights to her story. Thus, Jenny and I entered into a contract where I would have sole proprietship of her story. This is done all the time in the industry and protects the author, the protagonist, the literary agent and the story.

Hasn't she said elsewhere or implied that this was not the arrangement when Jenny's sister's comments in a screen capture from some website's comment section about this have been brought up or am I imagining this?

You're probably thinking of this (found here):



(ETA: You have a good memory! Nice pickup!)

[Altus]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Judy Byington
Before Robert's film was even made I had signed over my film and literary rights to Jenny's story to a New York literary agent who was already in the process of presenting them to publishing companies. If he and I were to spend time and money publishing Jenny's story we needed to be assured that we would be the only ones granted the legal rights to her story. Thus, Jenny and I entered into a contract where I would have sole proprietship of her story. This is done all the time in the industry and protects the author, the protagonist, the literary agent and the story.

I call BS. Since when does a reputable literary agent line anyone up with a vanity publisher who charges children $4,000 to publish books? http://leegoldberg.typepad.com/a_wri..._for_tate.html

[eerok]

Originally Posted by Altus

I call BS. Since when does a reputable literary agent line anyone up with a vanity publisher who charges children $4,000 to publish books?

Since never. The good news is that 22 Faces is not a real book. Tate will not promote it because they've already been paid by the author. Usually vanity efforts like this don't sell more than a few dozen copies, depending on how aggressively the author humps them.

It's probably a good idea to maintain a debunking presence on Amazon, though, especially if the author is getting TV exposure.

Still, it's interesting that no real publisher would apparently touch it.

[Dismember]

Originally Posted by cosmicaug

From that same comment section:

Hasn't she said elsewhere or implied that this was not the arrangement when Jenny's sister's comments in a screen capture from some website's comment section about this have been brought up or am I imagining this?

No, you're not imagining it - that conversation with Susan has been referenced many times, and Judy Byington always denied it and claimed that Doug was making things up, and had never talked to anyone in Jenny's family, etc.

[Dismember]

For those just now tuning in, Jenny's oldest son Robert just left a comment on Amazon, and on the next page Felicity tries to guilt trip him and his brother for having the audacity to share just a little of their side of the story.

Also, there are two new 5-star reviews, one of which is by Stephan (now "Stephan O."), who submitted a review in December -- if you look at the date, you'll see that he/she restored the original review that he inexplicably pulled. However, he/she has completely re-written the review, and this new one is critical of Jenny's family.

From Stephan's newly-revised review: "This pot of lies by the skeptics is followed by fabrication after fabrication that this group gets together and pats themselves on the back telling each other they are correct and they are doing a good job."

I've been following this for a couple months now and it just keeps getting more surreal. The intellectual dishonesty, the denial of Byington's behaviour, it's just amazing - are they unaware they're doing it? Or is it conscious, deliberate obfuscation on their part, that they rationalize because they believe they're fighting the bad guys?

Here's an earlier update with a brief recap of the Amazon drama so far.

ETA, a quote from Robert Steffen's Amazon comment:

Originally Posted by Robert Steffen

But really, seeing Judy try to bully one of the Steffen children again has got me all nostalgic.

I guess it's obvious by now -- that woman disgusts me.

[abaddon]

Originally Posted by eerok

Since never. The good news is that 22 Faces is not a real book. Tate will not promote it because they've already been paid by the author. Usually vanity efforts like this don't sell more than a few dozen copies, depending on how aggressively the author humps them.

It's probably a good idea to maintain a debunking presence on Amazon, though, especially if the author is getting TV exposure.

Still, it's interesting that no real publisher would apparently touch it.

I know nothing about Tate, but I did dabble some fingers in the short turnaroud, short print run business for "potentially" marketable books some years ago. We didn't care, we were just a vendor who got the books in some sort of reasonable shape that it could be produced in short runs.

There were only two types of customers:

1. Big league publishers, who made serious demands, but paid serious money to get a book out to test readers. They would put the hammer on you to produce, but you would be rewarded handsomely if you did.

2. Vanity publishers, who would apply the same but never pay.

Needless to say, our customer base in that arena got real small, real quick.

[Altus]

Originally Posted by abaddon

I know nothing about Tate...

Here's their CEO hard at work threatening his employees.
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/video...ng-25-16521269

[Dismember]

In Twenty-Two Faces, Judy Byington portrays Robert Steffen as a calculating sociopath who takes advantage of the vulnerable Jenny Hill, constantly manipulating and exploiting her in every conceivable way. Byington states outright that Mr. Steffen knew Jenny was a "multiple" and used this, repeatedly, to his advantage.

From Robert Steffen's obituary:

Quote:

For many years Bob struggled with mental illness, a challenge he faced with great strength.

Byington never bothers to mention that Mr. Steffen was dealing with his own mental illness, and may not have been fully responsible for his behavior at that time. Browsing through the book, despite Judy's attempts to malign him, he seemed to show up several times when Jenny needed help - including when she was hospitalized after losing a pregnancy. According to the book, the twins she lost weren't even his, but he still showed up to take care of her. Robert Steffen was also an intermittent primary caregiver for Jenny's infant son - also named Robert - even though the baby wasn't biologically his and was conceived while he and Jenny were still married (again, according to the book). There are other things, too, that belie Judy's portrayal of him. She tries as hard as she can to paint this man as a villain, but all I can see is a very troubled man who nonetheless cares about his wife and her son.

While I'm at it, a quote from Twenty-Two Faces:

Quote:

Jenny had little foundation on which to build a solid relationship with a male: no adoring family; a shameless father; a mother who harbored a raging jealousy of her oldest and hostile siblings who ignored their problem sister, .... (Kindle Locations 3960-3961).

It should be noted that Judy was also vilifying Jenny's sisters as antagonistic bullies, even while they themselves were in infancy through toddlerhood. Yes, Jenny's younger sisters, who at the time ranged in age from infant to toddler, they too are evil villains in this literary masterpiece

[cosmicaug]

Now Felicity is making a dramatic exit at Amazon. Didn't she say she was leaving once before or was it meant to be just a hiatus (or am I just making it up?)?

[Orphia Nay]

Originally Posted by cosmicaug

Now Felicity is making a dramatic exit at Amazon. Didn't she say she was leaving once before or was it meant to be just a hiatus (or am I just making it up?)?

I recall her saying she was leaving or taking a break a couple of times.

[Dismember]

Originally Posted by Orphia Nay

I recall her saying she was leaving or taking a break a couple of times.

She threatens to leave at regular intervals but never stays away longer than a few hours. It could be a coincidence but every single time she "leaves" a new poster turns up shortly thereafter, singing Judy Byington's praises and chastizing the evil, heartless critics, and Felicity has a change of heart and decides to stay.

The hilarious thing about this latest tantrum of hers is that just yersterday she said to Altus "I refuse to go run hide in a hole."

Oh, and I just noticed that there's one less 5-star review - looks like "Stephan O." pulled his review yet again. It only lasted one day this time.

[xterra]

Dismember, do you have any speculations about why Stephan O. posts and then removes the post?

(I confess that I haven't been reading the Amazon thread -- time is not on my side in this.)

[Dismember]

Originally Posted by xterra

Dismember, do you have any speculations about why Stephan O. posts and then removes the post?

Honestly, this last removal is something of a mystery.

He (assuming Stephan is a "he") may have had second thoughts about accusing Jenny Hill's family of "attacking" her, but he could have simply edited that without removing the entire review. Last month he removed his original review shortly after making a final comment complaining that his "evidence" had been ignored. I included part of Doug's reply in the screenshot just to make it clear that Stephan had presented no evidence to begin with, and further, every one of his claims had been thoroughly addressed. I can only guess that his first removal was because the conversation wasn't going as he'd hoped. The second time, who knows. Maybe he thought he could pass himself off as brand new commenter but he didn't realize that the newly edited review would still show the posted date as December 19, 2012.

I do find it suspicious that Stephan, Tylas Raine, and Doc W pulled the same stunt within a few weeks of each other (and now Stephan's done it a 2nd time), but it's hard to draw any firm conclusions about what "they" are up to.

Felicity also went through this routine several times before Amazon apparently deleted her review permanently. In Felicity's case, it's safe to assume she was removing her review to purge the comments. She did this a couple times right after making some of her signature gaffes and she was probably getting embarrassed that half the comments in her thread were blank spots that said "deleted by the author."

[Dismember]

Oh dear, Judy Byington's working the Dr. Phil board:

Originally Posted by Judy Byington

What is memory processing? I believe that if you truly want to heal from an abusive past it is essential to confront each and every physical and emotional memory of abuse that one may have. This takes years and years of very hard work with a skilled therapist, but it is worth it. ....

This coming from a woman who spent a couple decades giving therapy to vulnerable, sometimes mentally ill, clients. What is an "emotional memory" anyway?

Years and years with a therapist? No wonder poor Jenny Hill made no progress under Byington's care.

[Orphia Nay]

I see she's got her thugs prompting her. One, murkurious, is trying to act naive about DID, but keeps slipping up and feeding Judy opportunities to pimp her "wisdom". He even posted a link to a pro-DID study, even though he's meant to be pretending to not know anything about it.

Trolls, the lot of them.

[abaddon]

Originally Posted by Altus

Here's their CEO hard at work threatening his employees.
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/video...ng-25-16521269

Wow

[Dismember]

Originally Posted by cosmicaug

Now Felicity is making a dramatic exit at Amazon. Didn't she say she was leaving once before or was it meant to be just a hiatus (or am I just making it up?)?

Now she's making yet another dramatic exit.... good thing Amazon has a revolving door.

She made a special point of bringing up the Dr. Phil forum in her "goodbye again" post, and I suspect she's trying to lure everyone there.

Personally, I don't really see much value in bothering with the Dr. Phil board. I think they're getting bored just talking amongst themselves, which might be why the level of conversation over there is pretty terrible, but regardless, there's just not much to discuss. ETA - I just checked over there, and as I thought, they're still just talking to themselves. As fascinating as I find the subject matter, the discussion over there is underwhelming.

[Altus]

While the adherents of the repeated meme whisper conspiracy theories to each other in a little nook on Phil's board, Doug has hit the interwebs. http://news.yahoo.com/dr-phil-schedu...215629582.html

Oh, to be a fly on Judy Byington/Merrill/Weindorf's wall when she reads this one.

[douglas mesner]

Checking in again and checking out some of the Amazon links. It's so horrifyingly disgusting, it beggars the imagination. Jenny Hill's sons stop in to state that they love and support their mother, point out that she is mentally ill and that her stories are inconsistent, and state what has become painfully apparent: Judy is exploiting Jenny Hill, only to be denigrated by the likes of "Felicity Lee" and told that it is THEY who need good therapy. It really doesn't get lower. She, and the other DID proponents commenting would clearly happily throw anybody under the bus only to protect the comfort of their delusions. I also find it funny that Judy now has Jenny Hill's kids to contend with while previously she was making the argument that neither I, nor any of the critical commenters, had had any contact with the family or knowledge of their positions. It was a curious defense anyway, as family interviews or any corroborating perspective are curiously absent from the book to begin with.