Amazon Confirms Criminal Forgery or Procurement of Credit Card Number to Use Name of Ehrenfels Supporter to Post Spurious Negative Review of Ehrenfels Book.

"Usenet is a giant day care center full of unruly children with sociopathic egos." -Stephen K. Gielda

OTHER HEADLINES

Campaign to Win Ehrenfels A "Kook of the Month" Award Backfires, Revealing Sham Stalker Support Base & Prompting Inquiry into Real Size of Sci.Psychology.Psychotherapy Audience

When Flame War Aliases Accounted For, Examination Reveals Dwindling Audiences for Sci.Psychology.Psychotherapy as Wyatt Ehrenfels Report Starves News Group of New Victims, New Stalkers. Stalkers Look to Other News Groups for Source of Targets, Allies

Updated August 12, 2005

A group defending the status quo within psychology and referring to themselves by such monikers as the "Brotherhood (of the Blood)" and the "CABAL" ... is at it again. Squatting in a public and unmoderated "news group" (sci.psychology.psychotherapy), the pantheon of lovably madcap 'kook-ologists' resort to methods ranging from creative to criminal to disrupt the lives of original thinkers and dislocated professionals promoting unconventional wisdom on the net (individual gang member profiles available here). Functioning in ways similar to a gang, the nucleus of the group consists of a handful of academics / practitioners, but is assisted by a much larger group of non-degree holding supplicants and belligerents with criminal or psychiatric histories. Known for their aggressive "neighborhood watch" or "net-copping" of Psychology in cyberspace, the gang has been harassing author and social psychologist Wyatt Ehrenfels for well over a year now. "There's a reason they call me a 'kook in abstentia,'" commented Ehrenfels. "I haven't posted to their group in nearly a year-and-a-half." The innocuous flaming and witless zinging spilled over the line some people draw between Usenet & Internet, as the "Brothers of the Blood" + one 45-year-old woman sought revenge for a meteoric rise in Google ranking of a web page Ehrenfels used to feature the ideas of a man he later learned was on the gang's enemies list. "They demanded I take this page down. Insisted he was a kook and a spammer. I refused. One day after I noticed that the web page featuring him ascended into the top spot in the results of a Google search on his name, the gang became cyber-violent. They had worked hard over the years to ensure that 10,000 of the 13,000 pages returned in a Google search on his name, were unflattering depictions of this guy. They controlled the top 5 and, at times, the top 10, with their network of heavily advertised and cross-linked clones of that libelous dossier, the "Brad Jesness FAQ." Until my web page. They had been demanding for months now that I break all ties with this fellow, and then when I didn't, they submitted a spurious review of my book under the fellow's name, using one of his credit cards to gain access to Amazon.com's authenticated identity feature [so it would be more difficult to persuade Amazon reps that the review was phony]. Imagine my surprise when I saw the scathing review in my book's customer review area beneath the name 'Brad Jesness' and the label 'Real Name.' Jesness immediately contacted Amazon.com to deny the submission, but Amazon.com initially balked at the idea of removing the review, as Amazon reps had more reason to believe in the authenticity of the review [for which someone furnished Jesness's credit card number] than in the authenticity of Brad Jesness's e-mail denying it. He had to furnish his credit card number to prove he was Jesness. Eventually, the review was removed."

Whether inciting jealousy in a rival or writing a critical ethnography or exposé, authors may endure mischief designed to discredit, disrupt, or demonize. A manager of the Georgetown Barnes & Noble, host to C-SPAN televised speeches by internationally-recognized authors, informed Ehrenfels that it is not uncommon for someone to phone the bookstore to impersonate an author in an effort to cancel the author's engagement. In the age of the Internet, the range of what you could do to an author you do not like (or the author of a book you do not like) is boundless. The stalking gang was not the only source of a spurious review of Ehrenfels's Fireflies in the Shadow of the Sun. It would not have been easy for a reader to diagnose disingenuousness in the scholarly prose of one "Charles Grahm" of Japan, if such a name really exists. Ehrenfels might not have even petitioned for its removal had the 'reviewer' not dropped hints that he had not read Fireflies in the Shadow of the Sun. But it was clear to Ehrenfels that the reviewer was using the Amazon's customer book review to vent frustration with the author's web site (fireflySun.com/news.html). A few months after the review had been removed, Ehrenfels found the following in a live journal entry:

"It's odd," remarked the author. "It's unclear whether this fellow is admitting to having submitted this false review. And not only this false review, but others as well. Granted, he did not admit it. Quite the contrary. He blames it on a 'friend.' Somehow he just happens to have a copy of his friend's review of my book on his hard drive months after the review had been removed from Amazon.com. The fellow also claims that his friend removed the review himself (quite an altruistic turn of events and reversal of future for all victims concerned), when in actuality, Amazon.com removed the spurious review of my book at my request. The only thing stranger than all this is how such an outdated non-event should be fodder for someone's journal."

Ehrenfels was also amused by one other aspect of the fellow's live journal entry: his photograph. "He has a gun to his head ... His style of expression smacks of the kind of alienation you see a lot in college students. I used to hang with existential types like him, people whose intellectual pride and defenses would never allow them to turn to therapists or counselors for help. Not only do they think they're too smart and complicated to be understood by any therapist (and they're probably right), but in stringing together terms like constructivist, avant garde, and post-modern, using Nietszche and Foucault, always Nietszche and Foucault, they seek a higher plane from which to play therapist to all humanity. And it's not the kind of therapy that builds or empowers, except arguably themselves. It's the kind of therapy that makes others feel their lives are cruelly untranscendent. And if you accept your insignificance, well, then they'll accept you and maybe even flatter you for knowing to put them on a pedestal and maybe also for rejecting bour·geois morality. And while many of us wonder when such intelligent people will realize that a mask of intellectual superiority is not exactly the cure for loneliness (such people always choose power over sex on principle), they reserve the hope that one very special and very gifted person out there -- someone who "gets it" -- will cherish them for their superiority. Don't laugh. It's not quite as daunting as the search for extraterrestrial intelligence. It's more like the collision of two stars going nova simultaneously to form one deluxe black hole. Eventually another alienated person comes along who sees in this intellectually superior person something no one else can see ... which is to say he or she sees an opportunity to pat him- or herself on the back for being smart enough to see in the alienated person what no one else can see. And intellectuals like this love this kind of co-dependency. They can often be seen at dorm room parties regaling their cohorts with legendary tales of this bond of mutual abuse they share with their boy/girlfriend, speaking nostalgically of inherently destructive relationships. And with all the pyrotechnical mishaps, and the matter-of-fact foreknowledge of failure, one wonders how such people stay together. Answer. By breaking up at least a half dozen times. Remember, this is a relationship from which not even light can escape. And the nihilistic action heroes drone fondly about their 'adventurers' through all the romantic relationships in their lives that were inherently destructive and doomed to fail but after all the sociology, philosophy, and Freud you tend to forget that the abyss of which they speak 'out there' is really the emptiness in their own hearts. Society is a living laboratory of toxic illusions to which they and they alone possess the key. And while they're busy creating something out of the nothing in their own lives like your run-of-the-mill Supreme Being, they're sharing with you and the rest of the world their secret knowledge that everything outside them -- everything they were taught to believe in ... is really nothing at all.

It's unclear whether our fellow who submitted the false review falls in that category. There is a lot of reference to Japan in his live journal discussion with friends, and a number of visits to my web site from IP addresses traceable to Japan. I cannot imagine anything lonelier than being an American in Japan. But I learn from the movies, and if there's one thing I've learned from Lost in Translation (2003), it's that if I'm ever on extended business in Tokyo, I need to make for the nearest Scarlett Johansson -- and failing that -- a Cate Blanchett or two."

Wyatt Ehrenfels is by no means the first author to endure mischief and by no means the last. All authors should be aware of the potential for mischief. And mischief often lurks in unlikely places, such as the authentication piece of the Amazon.com customer review section. Some mischievous belligerents even derive satisfaction from calling public attention to the Amazon.com sales ranks for sagging titles. "Not that these statistics are accurate," comments Ehrenfels. "Even when all the lag is accounted for, the fluctuations in my sales rank often seems to have no correlation with known realities. One author informed me that for weeks following an unusual bulk purchase of his novel, the rank continued to slide. And the rank for books continue to fall over the period that the book is unavailable because it has sold out. If you examine the authors and publishers: improve your sales link beneath the sales rank, you'll be forgiven for wondering whether Amazon.com may use the sales rank to sell authors marketing tools to make their books more prominent on ... Amazon.com."

Two months after the skirmish in Amazon.com ran its course, one stalker using the names Elmer Wood posted a fake review of The Fight That Never Ends, (2005), whose author (Tim Brown) had been accused of supporting the views of her gang's enemy. It was at this point that Ehrenfels began using screen capture software to document the mischief, though in this particular case, no identity theft was committed. Kevin Fries submitted a review under his real name, and Elmer Wood is a fictional device.

A fellow gangster at least had the decency to use his real name, even if he didn't have the decency to read the book.

By attacking those who support their enemies, the gang attempts to cut their enemies off from sources of support. "Kookology" is the name these gang members give to the cult-like ideology underpinning their liturgical observance of certain rules governing (a) conduct on the Internet, (b) the hunt for those who violate their code of conduct / conventional wisdom, and (c) their persecution of the violators.

The stalker behind the Elmer Wood submission, a doctoral candidate from a university in Illinois, failed to acknowledge that despite her efforts to hang an effigy of 'kook failure' on the author, the book is not only faring well, but faring especially well when compared to works by academics. (The stalker is an aspiring academic). The criticism brings to light an interesting phenomenon associated with the sales of academic works. You would often assume that a sale of 500 academic texts represents 500 interested readers when, in actuality, we're talking about 10 university bookstores placing orders on behalf of professors (including the author) who've assigned the text as required reading for their students. Talk about your captive audiences. (The academic term for this is independent observations. You know how psychology professors make all sorts of assumptions about the characteristics of their data so they can cram it into some standard calculation. Well, one of the things they assume is that their data represents independent observations). So when the stalking, approval-addicted doctoral candidate adopted a prohibitive commercial standard for the purposes of winning a flame war, she unwittingly cast a pall of doubt on the worth of books produced within the community in which she covets membership.

This is not to say books with low sales ranks -- even those 2.6 million rungs down the ladder -- are worthless. On the contrary, sales figures are never a pure measure of the work's intrinsic worth. Some publishers pay Amazon.com for featured placement for their titles and let's not forget the sales rank itself becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. What do you mean the book is ranked 2.1 million? Maybe I don't want to buy that book. Here's that matter of independence again. The success of any work has to be measured against the quality of the readers within intended markets as well as the influence of the work on the attitudes of those who read it. Most academics would say that Professor Myers found immortality with his survey text, but once the semester ended, I couldn't sell the puddle-jumping Introduction to Psychology back to the bookstore fast enough. By contrast, independent sources within the psychological community, including a PhD in experimental psychology, speculated that Ehrenfels's author web site factored into a decision by the American Psychological Association to purchase (and promote its purchase) of the journal Dreaming from the Association for the Study of Dreams for its list of flagship publications. And Ehrenfels continues to report a 'scattering of local influences' when asked about the effect of his work. The anti-author propoganda machine can never quite disrupt the influence of a book operating at this depth below the media radar.

An independent observor supporting author Tim Brown, acting as foil to the doctoral candidate, appropriately raised the spectre of jealousy when he penned: "Bad enough you are jealous of Tim. You also have to go and try to [expletive] up his writing career or chance at making a living for himself as a writer." The incident vindicates many citizens who refer to a social pestilence emerging from the depths of Usenet's so-called 'news groups'.

And if you think it's costly being Wyatt Ehrenfels, despised for having received a note of support from Mr. Brad Jesness and for having reserved a page on his web site for Mr. Brad Jesness's ideas, imagine the risks of being Mr. Jesness's wife and half-brother. Renee Jesness received threatening e-mails at her place of employment and has been the subject of over 600 vulgar messages in sci.psychology.psychotherapy. And then these messages surfaced after one member of the stalking gang conducted research into the Jesness family.

And author Jerry Jesness may have paid the price with this -- notice the date -- review of his book in Amazon.com. Don't let the real name label fool you. The gang members have also used Brad Jesness's credit card number to authenticate a spurious negative review of Ehrenfels's book in Brad's name. Did they hack their way into that information?

How the Stalking Gang Came into the Credit Card Number: 3 Theories

Ever find one of these e-mails in your spam box from Amazon.com?

A couple readers suggested that perhaps the stalkers may have used this phishing technique to harvest the credit card number needed to authenticate what is widely believed to be a spurious review of Jerry Jesness's book. The full text of the e-mail reads, At the last reviewing at your amazon account we discovered that your information is inaccurate. We apologize for this but because most frauds are possible because we don't have enough information about our clients, we require this verification. Please login and reenter your personal information.

Th moment you type in your username and password, you are giving access to your Amazon.com account, which includes access to any credit card and personal address info you have stored in that account.

While I appreciate all the tips, I think it's unlikely the stalkers used this technique to obtain the credit card number of Brad Jesness. Brad Jesness verified receipt of this spam, but denies falling for the scam.

An old and rather daunting grade school classmate of mine, having alarmed teachers by building a near-functional bomb for the 7th grade science fair, demonstrated his teen hacking skills when he finessed his way into what he called the CBI (Credit Bureau) satellite. Gaining access to every possible detail about the lives of some of our school officials -- their debts, their loans, their history of employment -- did not seem to pose much difficulty for him. (I wonder if he ever followed through with his plan to send a truck load of toilet tissue to our principal's home).

Or did the gang members of sci.psychology.psychotherapy simply take out a credit card in Brad's name? Whatever it took to create pseudo-authentic reviews like the following. Is this a false review from the stalking gang? The text of the review sounds knowledgeable, but I've been informed that major sections of the text were lifted from the author's web site. Having had their false reviews of Ehrenfels's works yanked by Amazon.com customer service representatives, no doubt the gang members realize that they need more than an authentication to guarantee staying power. They need to avoid sounding vulgar and ignorant.

While myths of Ehrenfels's strategic partnership with Mr. Jesness far exceed his sympathy for a kindred victim, the truth of the matter is that Ehrenfels thought Jesness had some good things to say about the scientific foundation of psychotherapy and so he made a place for him on his web site: "I thought Jesness did a decent job of summarizing existing academic criticisms of the DSM. That's pretty much of the extent of our relationship. All claims alleging alliances above and beyond that ... is either false or is a fleeting artifact of their harassing me. They'd love nothing more than to drive their victims into a rival community." Not only is gang warfare a great way to pass time and to give meaning and structure to their days, but there are other benefits to putting their victims in a single orbit. (1) Victims that morph into a single blob-like entity lose the very individuality and humanity that attracts sympathy from third parties. (2) The stalkers do not have to tailor separate works of defamation for each of their victims. They can efficiently address all their victims in the same work and may even apply the same adjectives. But beyond the practical convenience, there is that cult-like ideology (i.e. that shared brain) that contributes to the mythologization of their enemies. Heider's P-O-X model, a 1950s textbook sim·plism used only to develop basic reading skills in social psych grad students, in all its Boolean transitivity, is part of the stalker's mental programming. According to P-O-X theory, (a) because Ehrenfels treated the views of Mr. Jesness with respect and (b) because the stalkers hate Mr. Jesness, (c) the stalkers must harbor the same feelings toward Ehrenfels as toward Jesness. Such is the world of the kookologist who demands a life free of dissonance, as is the world of his counterpart above ground, the psychology professor, where I and E are denied entry to any room in which C is already present. Is it any wonder P-O-X theory still makes the syllabus in 2005 academia?

The social psychologist turned author turned senior researcher commented on the entrenched dynamic. "Even my most tense exchanges with psychology insiders [outside Usenet] taper into rational discussion after a few volleys. In most cases, I parted on good terms with even the most strident reactionaries who lashed out at me in our initial volley. I was always able to meet people where they were and move toward a middle, if not common, ground. But this 'Brotherhood of the Blood' ... these people can't be reasoned with. They are in the business of manufacturing enemies. After failing to salvage a civil exchange with one of SPPs regulars, I came to the conclusion that I might as well have been talking with one of Usenet's bots, and I promptly left that "news group." And after the gang's signature creep pursued me through other news groups, I promptly left Usenet altogether for months. But the harassment continued in my absence both inside and outside Usenet, and I composed a report of the cyberstalking for the benefit of those visiting my web site. But the way these thugs see it, I am not entitled to a web site, and I am not entitled to address for my own readers what they were saying about me in SPP, and by that I mean what they were manufacturing about me." Just days after Ehrenfels's cyberstalking report reached # 1 in a Google search on keyword [sci.psychology.psychotherapy] (even above the sppm charter] and just days after Ehrenfels's page reserved for fellow stalking victim Brad Jesness leap frogged in Google over the CABAL's network of web sites sporting a "Brad Jesness FAQ", the CABAL posed as customers to publish fake negative reviews of a book they never read: Fireflies in the Shadow of the Sun in Amazon. One of the stalkers acknowledged the theft of a credit card number that appeared to authenticate their impersonation of Mr. Jesness (i.e. Amazon.com requires a credit card number to authenticate identity for purposes of using Amazon's "Real Name" Label).

One CABAL member left his nest to impugn the character of Wyatt Ehrenfels in the AlleyDog Psychology forums, and another impersonated Wyatt Ehrenfels in a defamatory message about Mr. Jesness to a psychology forum.

Emails and phone calls to Allpsych.com forum owner / operator, Christopher L. Heffner, an adjunct instructor with Florida Atlantic University, have not been answered. Efforts to reach Dr. Heffner continued after Yahoo required him to correct fraudulent contact information for his domain.

Is it a mere coincidence that the impersonator was able to sneak this message into the forum just days before deactivation of the forum by the administrator prohibited replies? The forum administrator also seems to have deactivated his contact information. This message, prominently displayed in a Web Search of the name "Brad Jesness," is hear to stay. Months earlier another member of the gang snuck, in similar serendipitous fashion, a number of anti-Ehrenfels messages to the sci.psychology news group just days before Google stopped supporting posting through its "civilian" service and a few months before posting to sci.psychology was deactivated universally. The graphic below captures just a few of the messages one stalker turned out in short order.

Another three epileptically posting belligerents attempted to use the Amazon.com sales rank to depict my book as a commercial flop. "Fireflies in the Shadow of the Sun is exceeding expectations on PublisherDirect, where the two volumes that constitute Fireflies are shrinkwrapped and sold as one unit, as I intended. The book also sells out on bn.com, despite the fact the volumes happen to retail separately. I ship a very small, insignificant share of copies to Amazon.com, so even when it sells out there, it does not produce the kind of ranking my adversaries demand of me. Also, the 800-page epic (deemed five times the size of the average novel) retails in Amazon.com for twice the price of PublisherDirect (a prohibitive $79). (UPDATE 08/16/05: Amazon.com now sells book as boxed set for correct price). Given that I make this fact widely known on my web site, I don't expect many sales from Amazon. I use Amazon as an alternative fulfillment option for individuals who are only comfortable using a big-name e-tailer, individuals who do not learn about my book through sources close to my web site, individuals who put a premium on speed of delivery, and individuals who may look there for ... customer reviews. Otherwise, I expect and encourage purchasing Fireflies through my web site, where I also earn royalties on sales. Enough customers place importance on receiving my book quickly that I've been able to record a peak rank for my book (i.e. 50,000). Not too shabby, or as they say in some circles, shabby chic."

Amusing Side Notes & More Causes for Chortling, Guffawing

The stalkers have recently been crossposting across many news groups a libelous passage that memorializes the Amazonian conflict. When multiplied by a factor of x [the number of web-based news readers archiving Usenet messages to the Internet], this message is likely to flood the pages of results on a Google or Yahoo search of the name "Wyatt Ehrenfels." It's happened before. It'll happen again. Having been issued the "tsunami warning," Ehrenfels has decided to answer this message before it runs ashore of the civilized world and contaminates an otherwise rational search landscape with gang violence:

Har har. The author of this message, when he writes 'Amazon discussions,' is referring to Amazon.com's customer review of books. A heated discussion broke out in the review section for my book Fireflies in the Shadow of the Sun after a member of the stalking gang submitted a false negative review of my book under the name of Brad Jesness. The timing was no coincidence. The gang wished to punish me because I refused to remove from my web site a page I set aside for Mr. Jesness's ideas. The spurious customer review appeared just hours after I noticed that my page had vaulted over their network of anti-Jesness web pages in a Google search of the name "Brad Jesness." (Working feverishly, they managed to regain the top spots after registering bradjesness.com, which they use to house yet another copy of the libelous and absurdly inaccurate Brad Jesness FAQ).

The stalking gang anticipated that both Mr. Jesness and I would request that Amazon officials remove the false negative review. So they used Amazon.com authentication feature so that the words "Real Name" would appear beneath the author (Brad Jesness). After complaining, Amazon officials initially balked, claiming that Mr. Jesness MUST have been the author, as the only way to authenticate a review is by validating his credit card number. Mr. Jesness at that point surmised that this was more than a mere case of impersonation, but a case of hacking and identity theft.

When it looked as if Amazon might not remove the false review, I decided I had to offset the blow to my statistics caused by the negative review. In addition to submitting a negative review, the stalking gang also used Amazon.com's review functionality to deny the two positive reviews that had already been in the system by rating them as "not helpful." Naturally, the gang members assigned helpful ratings to their vulgar indictments of my book.

To offset these potentially damaging statistics, I turned to friends and supporters who had informed me at one point or another that they had enjoyed my book. I asked them to compose a few comments that I could post to Amazon.com. After collecting their comments, I submitted the reviews myself under pen names I registered with Amazon.com from my own PC, rather than asking them to register with Amazon.com themselves. I decided to spare them the additional burden of registering themselves but; more importantly, I also decided not to expose these individuals to the stalking gang. And I suspect my friends and supporters would have balked at the idea of using their own names or PCs to post to Amazon.com after I had already apprised them of the stalkers' long history of targeting the family members and supporters of their victims.

I even went so far as to submit one false positive review in the name of the stalking doctoral candidate (the only stalker whose identity was known to me at that time). I figured this might prompt the removal of the mischievous submission and dissuade her accomplices from additional mischief. It did not.

For a few days, the customer review area for my book looked like a war zone with duelling positive and negative reviews and other submissions that contained nothing but accusations, innuendoes, and character assassination.

Amazon.com officials did finally step in and remove the false negatives and with them, the new positive reviews that shared the same source IP address. Only the two pre-existing reviews remained. The greedy stalking gang lobbied to have these reviews removed as well, adopting with spurious certainty the position that these reviews were also fabricated by the author.

But in the end, the truth of the matter is that I did not compose any positive reviews of my own work (except for the one-liner in the name of a female stalker that I intended to remove if the incursions stopped and if the false negatives were removed).

Amazon mindlessly e-mailed form letters to each party. You know, that one that states that the activity of which the other party is accused will not be tolerated. The cyberstalking gang has actually been attempting to use this letter as support for their claim that Amazon "caught me" forging positive reviews of my book. They'll say anything, and they can do that when each of them presents as multiple anonymous entities, has nothing to lose, and no reputation to protect. They have removed every requirement or incentive to appear consistent or truthful. They can treat their life on Usenet like a video game.

And throughout it all, Amazon.com officials concealed their consternation and tried to appear impartial (or just plain insouciant), but a few days after the matter resolved, I found evidence in my web logs that a representative of Amazon.com (207.171.180.XXX) twice accessed my cyberstalking report directly, also accessing a supporting document, and adding the web site to his or her Favorites list. The figure below displays two of these three accesses. Clearly someone at Amazon.com wanted to know more about what was going on.

The belligerent that Ehrenfels identified as "Stalker A" recently regaled sci.psychology.psychotherapy with proof of "Stalker B"s success as an author to win a game of upmanship with Ehrenfels. They couldn't tear Ehrenfels down outright, so they built up one of their own and made some favorable (though rather labored) social comparisons. Ehrenfels made light of the practice when asked to comment. "I was an author. He was sort of an author. His book did well out of the gate, so why not compare the books. Forget for a moment that I wrote a novel about dreaming and that this other fellow wrote a chapter for an IT reference manual. And forget for a moment that this fellow very amusing friend refers to the manual as his friend's book. What I find noteworthy is that the stalkers have to build someone else up to tear me down. That's how buildings like the Sears Tower get built. When I lived in Chicago, it was not uncommon for me to overhear residents drawing flattering comparisons with New York. But I lived in New York as well. And no one there is making comparisons with Chicago. Not because the comparisons would not have flattered New York. More likely because it was New York. I don't quite understand why this guy feels the need to one-up me, but he has nothing of his own to offer in this respect, and so he compares my work of fiction about dreams with his buddy's chapter for penetration testers. While his book is doing well, I am personally acquainted with a few authors who have enjoyed substantially more in the way of success than stalker B, and I am not using that fact to lob the loser label in his general direction. It's only worth commenting on in that it illustrates how the cyberstalking ring functions. None of these individuals can stand on his or her own two feet. In the same vein, I did not appreciate having my work co-opted as ammunition in one person's pointless struggle with these stalkers (i.e. a message titled "J Wyatt Ehrenfels Book Selling Out"). In the end, this will serve only to provoke anti-Ehrenfels sentiment in individuals with whom I am not acquainted and whose only basis for animosity is this hint of an affiliation with someone on their enemies list. It's a pale imitation of life when people are judged entirely by peripheral matter. I am not evaluated on the basis of my ideas. Instead I am judged for my tenor, my 'possible' motives, and my endorsement of some views advanced by someone who turned out to be on this gang's enemies list. My book, which was never read by these folks, is panned because the author defended the basic rights of someone who happened to be on this gang's enemies list. And, even if insincerely, the worth of my work is 'judged' on the basis of its most current sales rank. This is the point at which things ring hollow and at which all reason is thrown into the wind beyond any reasonable hope of recovery. If Stalker A and the person seeking to exploit my work want to rent a double bed in Sartre's No Exit Hell, then so be it. But I want no part of it. And Stalker B should not want any part of it. I cannot fathom the motivation behind Stalker B, and why he would throw his body into the brawling pile, given (a) that I have helped promote the book in which he listed as a contributing author (see http://www.fireflySun.com/book/Google.php), (b) that Stalker B and I have never been acquainted and that I have never addressed any statements directly to Stalker B, and (c) that it is widely believed that Stalker B has no affiliation with (and no known stake in) the psychological community. But I find his investment in these vain efforts to destroy me personally quite curious in light of the presumptive success his book has been enjoying. Maybe I allowed myself to be duped into believing that the individual claiming to have authored this book really has any connection to it. A number of months ago Stalker A circulated a message in which he lied about 'retiring from Usenet,' claiming three publishers were competing for the rights to his (Stalker As) autobiography" (revealing that envy is at least an aspect of the stalking motive).

Ehrenfels points out that it isn't standard practice to compare sales for an IT reference manual with sales for a work of fiction about dreaming. "I'm pleased the other guy's work is selling, but it's apples and oranges. Yes, I am pleased. Circumstances make for strange bedfellows, and what my stalkers fail to acknowledge is that for months now I've been helping this guy sell more copies of his book in my widely disseminated and acclaimed Google report (See bottom of page). So if we want to be scientific about this, we're not even comparing independent observations here. But yes, if it means that much to them, and if it's sales figures we're using as the one and only yardstick of book quality and mission worth, and if stalker B were the only or even the primary author of the book (his share of et al isn't even listed on Amazon), then yes, I'd have to tip my hat to the guy. Heck. I'll tip it anyway. A book chapter is no small accomplishment. It's not like the practice in academia of joining all these research teams as a grad student so you can become the sixth author on as many four page publications as humanly possible. And it's certainly not like getting all gussied up for a convention where you're addressing an audience of five from a panel of six. So I'd have to be six attendees short of a plenary to criticize stalker B's work on any score ... that is, once we've set aside the obvious matter of stalker Bs conduct as an author."

"Suffice it to say I'm not entirely impressed by the way Stalker B has been comporting himself as an author. While his co-author is giving the nation a few soundbites on CNN Headline News, he seems to enjoy discussing what windfall he has reaped in the way of celebrity and royalties, falling just short of mentioning how he sleeps on a pile of money with many beautiful ladies. If he had any scholarly motive for adding his footnote to this book, no one would know it based on his statements as of this day May 17, 2005. By contrast, as a labor of love, Fireflies is an entirely different genus and species of book altogether. I took on what I knew was a monumental challenge to help the general public understand that obscure and banal life that is the academic life. If you think understanding alone is a challenge, it is my goal to persuade my readers in what ways psychology professors have not only failed, but sabotaged, our understanding of that indefatigably mysterious phenomenon some people deny experiencing in technicolor if at all (i.e. dream life). And it became necessary for me to violate a number of best marketing practices in the process. There is that matter of the assumed name.

"9"

Nine means many things to me. If I had 9 fingers, I would feel cheated. If I ran for 9 yards on 3rd and 10, I'd be forced to punt. If I had only 9 years to live, I'd die a very young man. If I garnered only 9 votes for kook of the month for calendar May, 2005, I'd enjoy quite a good laugh. And that's exactly what I enjoyed yesterday. The nothing signified by all the sound and fury leading up to the kook nominations and voting was right there in the results. For those of you who were unaware that Usenet, as a collection of news groups, has been dubbed the largest decentralized user network in the world by Google. (The GNP of Usenet is the nomination, certification, compilation, and harassment of kooks, as illustrated by one of the many kook web sites cataloging them).

And Stalker A certainly wants everyone to know that in seizing control of his little piece of Usenet, he earns the right to mock the trio of Yahoo forums I created for the discussion of my own work as woefully unattended at 1200 members. So you can imagine my surprise when the results of the voting were handed out, with a garnish of sagebrush, to a chorus of crickets. Only 48 people voted in the Usenet kook elections. Forty-eight. That's all. Okay, even if only 48 Usenet autchtonomous types voted, you the reader must imagine I garnered the most votes for kook, right? Wrong. I lost in a 22-9 landslide. Yes. That's right, in an election in which only 31 voted for one of the nominees, I ran a distant third behind "abstain" and "neither of the above." Guffaw. Almost twice the number of people cast a ballot indicating they did not like the choices than vote for me. And two-thirds of 'Ehrenfels for kook' votes came from predictable sources within sci.psychology.psychotherapy (i.e. folks on this list). In fact, one of the three extraterrestrial votes (i.e. outside SPP) was cast on the basis of my name alone ("with a name like J Wyatt Ehrenfels, he has to be a kook"). But even more embarrassing than persuading no more than 3 quasi-independent voters to make me kook of the month ... even more embarrassing than the revelation from one alt.usenet.kooks insider that voting this month was half of what it was in prior months ... is the fact a lavish announcement of the nomination by the stalking ring's "officer in charge of kooks and trolls" (yes, this is an office) failed to produce any response within the stronghold of anti-Ehrenfels sentiment. There are only two explanations for this. Either the throngs of subscribers to the "Big 8 News Group" do not find me 'kooky', or the ornery oligarchy of stalkers drove away their audiences with their punk freshman style antics ("Go State! Tech Sucks!"). You may very well be able to count regular visitors to this "news group" on one hand (or less). Not that you'd know it from the multiple-selves approach to posting in SPP. But if we accounted for all the aliases, the flame wars in SPP would look a little less like War of the Worlds and a little more like Iowa high school women's 6-on-6 basketball. The once mighty influx of fresh victims and fresh stalkers to sci.psychology.psychotherapy may have been curtailed by the dissemination of the stalking report, which warns of risks to participating in this unmoderated and uncivilized "news group," but I suspect the minimum moral fiber and intelligence of the world's people played a greater role in their revulsion. So remember this state of affairs when the disingenuous 'Necco' takes to the web to proclaim, as he did with another target a few months back, that I was certified a kook by thousands! And when some seamy forensic psychologist calling himself 'Fyre & Sulphur' writes that more people voted me a kook than voted for Bush, Gore, and Ruben Studdard combined, remember that only 6 more people voted me a kook than nominated me for the award. Judging by the fact you could hear a pin drop in the hours after the election returns were published, I'd say they did themselves irreparable harm nominating me for the award in the first place. Even if I managed to scare up 23 votes to come out on top of my counterpart, it would have been a Pyrric victory for them.

"Anyway, it's a harmlessly amusing and, in some ways, honorary award which in my case will behave more like a facetious tribute than a psychiatric diagnosis. There's no dignified way to respond to any of their actions, but I was never one to shirk from a challenge. Quite frankly, I wondered what took them so long to nominate me. I think they were reluctant to violate their own bylaws. They treat this kook certification thing with an almost liturgical reverence, and they have had to set aside or make exceptions to a number of their own rules and traditions to nominate me for this award and, for that, for being bigger than their own religion, I feel honored. I haven't posted to their news group in over a year, which makes my nomination as a 'kook in abstentia' a bit of an oxymoron since a kook is traditionally someone who not only abuses the news groups, but is abusing the news groups at the time of the nomination. How can I take my place on the kook calendar when no one will find any record of my participation in Usenet? Not that I ever abused the news groups. If you count the total number of messages I posted to the news groups over the past four years, it is less than 1% of the total contributions of any one of the stalkers nominating me for the award. I cannot fathom posting 6000 messages to Usenet in a lifetime let alone in a 4-5 year period. And all these posts are off-topic flames. Then there is the ever-aggravating matter of my credentials. A kook is someone who does not have a culturally recognized basis for their arguments. As a PhD in Social Psychology confining my comments to the field of psychology, I am more qualified to evaluate the worth of my arguments than practically the entire Usenet voting population. Thirdly, a kook is also traditionally someone who wanders well outside his wheelhouse to make claims that strain credibility to say the least. If anything, my droning on policy matters runs the risk of boring my readers than engaging them with sensational claims of alien abductions, conspiracies, or psychotronic manipulation. They really jumped the shark here. And last but not least, nominations are supposed to be based on reasoning rather than revenge. So when you ask, why nominate me now, the sour content of their grapes becomes all the more apparent. There IS the matter of my sci.psychology.psychotherapy report and my refusal to edit my web site at their behest. I don't post to Usenet. I have made quite a big life for myself outside Usenet, and so this is the only way they can get to me ... well if you don't count their meddling in my business affairs. One of the web pages I allocated for an essay written by someone who happens to be on the stalker enemies list also rose in the Google rankings. It used to be when you searched on this fellow's name in Google, the top 5 results would be mirrors of this defamatory FAQ about the guy. Now my fellow's essay, which addresses this defamation, ranks # 1 and # 2 in Google on good days, and #2 and #3 on other days. Of course, everyone knows these rankings are transient, but it really upset them. It's just the sort of thing that would stick in the craw of a gang that prides itself on maintaining an extraordinary, almost freemason-like, control over the Internet. And then there was a skirmish on Amazon. The doctoral candidate saw an opportunity to finger me not only for forging a positive review in her name, but once I admitted to doing this perfectly reasonable thing, she accused me of forging every other positive review ... apparently to lay the groundwork for a spurious kook nomination. What all of this tells me -- and screams quite loudly to anyone who might be listening is that these gangbangers can dish it out, but they sure can't take it.(Sci.psychology.psychotherapy is less a ghost town than a ghost town movie set complete with faux saloons and banks. The stalkers' unspoken motto is 'this town isn't big enough for the both of us,' and they've said it so often -- and made such examples of those who wouldn't leave -- that everyone left and no one dare enter). A handful of victims stuck around, signing on to a flame war with a lifetime guarantee, turning these news groups into the same kind of Western town depicted in Last Man Standing (1996). What I remember most about this quirky film is the absence of townspeople. Two rival gangs kill each other for control of a town with no population. Halfway through the film it dawned on me that I stopped seeing bystanders in the streets, in that saloon, and in the hotels. Where did all the people go? Did the gang members even notice their disappearance? I wondered whether the director had even noticed it until the gas station attendant announced that a lack of business had forced him to plan his departure. The film could not have made it any plainer that after gunslinger Christopher Walker took his bullet, Bruce Willis was the last man standing.

One of the stalker's victims had her own metaphor for this reality: "The Augean stables were known as the most filthy stable in all of Greece. The man who owned it was called Augeas. He was know as a cattle thief, but after he stole cattle, he shut them up in one big barn and never let them out again. So, eventually, the stables became dirtier and dirtier with cow manure and other gross things ... And, if they can't get someone there [sci.psychology.psychotherapy], they will bully them into coming to their "stables" by threatening to make the persons regular [news group] a public urinal or aegean stable like sci.psychology.psychotherapy is -- if the person won't come when trolled in their own news group for months and months with no response like [stalking doctoral candidate] did."

And some victims have fought back. This stalking 45-year-old doctoral candidate, a polarizing figure in Usenet whose obsession with Wyatt Ehrenfels dates back to 2003, was recently victimized herself by a cybersleuth who procured access to a public record of her misadventure with the tax authorities. After the way the doctoral candidate had obsessed over Ehrenfels and his web site, one might be dismayed that she should respond to this public reveal as she did below:

'What kind of no-life oBsEsSo devotes so much time and energy to a stranger on Usenet?'
(Message-ID: MPG.1cf67b38c40583c298b5e7@news.west.earthlink.net).

The question never seemed so absurd as it does from her keyboard. Unfortunately, this doctoral candidate ("Kali") is no stranger to me. There are friends & acquaintances, there are strangers, and then there stalkers. So why is self-knowledge so problematic for those who deem themselves ambassadors for a science of (other) human beings and their image schemas? I just amended my htaccess file to block access to my site from her IP, hoping that small gesture will help break her addiction. The last thing I need is this asterisk appended to my reputation ... probing, original thinker ... depth of understanding ... consummate detective of dreams ... command of science's fundamentals ... resisting those who try to limit his game to smallball ... but beats up on mentally ill women. And she seemed to cool down for a number of months -- that is -- until Google resolved its capacity crisis, my Web host resolved a server bug, and search engines YAHOO, MSN, and ASK.com took their game to Google's level. Suddenly my pages began ranking prominently in a search of psychology-related keywords in the major search engines, and referrals to my site quadrupled almost overnight. Within a few days, this doctoral candidate and czar of public relations for psychology began tossing my name around in Usenet again, attempting to depict me as a man obsessed with ... Kali ... much in the same way she manufactured a "discussion" among Usenetters celebrating the "physical beauty" and "invulnerability" of ... Kali ... all her own aliases of course. Everything she does betrays her need for love and approval, and developing her department's Web site and hording affiliations are the least of them. I wish I had a nickel for everyone who is said to be obsessed with ... Kali. Incidentally, she continues to visit my blog, behaving much like a visitor to the Smithsonian's Museum of Modern Art. Only she accesses my blog through a proxy server to avoid having to check her camera at the door.

Had I been willing to involve the authorities in the matter of the identity theft (Amazon did say they would be cooperative with law enforcement), the one person who stands to lose most is this PhD candidate. So someone forged her name as the source of a positive review of my book. You'd think she'd show a little sense of humor after she, or most likely one of her gang members, did same (and with illicitly-obtained credit card authentication). You'd think that if she had nothing to do with the theft of Mr. Jesness's identity in the false review of my book that she would have condemned the crime or, failing that, at least acknowledged the crime as a factor in the provocation of the forged positive review in her name. I suspected she wouldn't behave rationally, and so the positive review was manufactured to capture evidence of her malice and hypocrisy.

The time may come when it becomes necessary to apprise her faculty of her membership in a gang. She will likely perceive this statement as some kind of threat and attempt to turn things on their head by making herself out to be the victim and me out to be the stalker. (I didn't realize Jenga was such a popular game at sorority mixers). The truth of the matter is that she is a gang member. It's not a violent gang, but its purpose is to make you feel as though you're living day after day ... year after year ... under a gathering threat, and then diagnose you as paranoid when you make a statement consistent with that perception. In this gang, she has even accepted an office with a title. Something about being 'in charge of kooks and trolls.' Just what should I make of the fact quasi-author / stalker B made subtle, almost imperceptible overtures about "joining the brothahood" in the news group named alt.hackers.malicious? Just what malice and mayhem does he hope to visit on me (providing there are any takers)? Since Stalker B has the best hacking skills of anyone in the Brothahood, he is the most suitable envoy to this would-be outpost.

But regarding our 45-year-old graduate student and insurance industry castoff, isn't it standard practice in the investigation of gang activity to apprehend a gang member who may possess information about crimes (e.g. identity theft) perpetrated by another member of her gang? And wouldn't it behoove the victims of such a crime to inform law enforcement that those responsible for her professional development may be ideally suited to persuade her to act in a manner consistent with the standards and ethics of her chosen profession and, failing that, her age? Innocuous flaming in Usenet is one thing. Criminal encroachment into business affairs is another. She could pinch her cheeks and bat her eyes all she wants, she's not about to convince anyone that I'm the real creep here. But then, what do I know?

I do know that I've digressed. I believe I was discussing the challenges I take upon myself when I write a book like Fireflies in the Shadow of the Sun. This is tough stuff. If I wanted to succeed for the sake of succeeding, perhaps to prove something about myself to myself or others, or perhaps to improve my lot in life, I would have written a Java Script manual or published an anthology of tabloid gossip columns or croon a few notes for Paula and Randy. The truth of the matter is that my critique combines logic, observation, and insider knowledge of SOPs, to make its case. As persuasive as an argument can be, it still falls within the realm of subjective judgement. I never pretended to be Erin Brockovich collecting puddle water outside the grounds of the PSE&G plant. Nor am I Jeffrey Weygandt calling attention to internal memos about nicotine impact boosting. Nor am I Johnny Long detailing the abuse of a simple tool to gain malicious access to web sites and hidden and 'secure' information. No. This is not about smoking guns and working out long division with no remainder. My argument is more complicated than that. My argument not only connects dreaming and waking experiences but also policies, procedures, constructs, attitudes, and results. Power is big. Google is big. Big tobacco ... is big. But the moment you decide to write about dreaming, the science of dreaming, and all things academia, well a full three-quarters of the population has already decided you're toiling in virtual anonymity. And that's before I adopted the pen name to protect myself against the likes of folks in sci.psychology.psychotherapy.

I will never know whether Fireflies in the Shadow of the Sun, had it not been written as a narrative as opposed to a work of non-fiction, would have garnered any invitations from nationally syndicated radio or television programs. It did garner an invitation to write an article for an internationally-recognized industry magazine. (See issue 22 of New Therapist Magazine). And I did field requests from a number of community access television producers for copies of the interview I originally taped for OKTV of Passaic County, NJ. And it does appear that the coordinator of an annual book fair is attempting to arrange for me to either moderate a university panel discussion or debate faculty of one university's psychology department. But one does wonder whether the book would have been a household name if it had been written for a mass audience. But the 750-page stylistically variegated novel published under a pen name is designed and written for the rare individual like me in what was once my plight -- those individuals in the greatest need and for those extraordinary individuals whose respect is worth having. I decided early on that I'd much rather spend the rest of my life wondering how well the book would have done if I had appealed to a mass audience than spend the rest of my life wondering whether I could have reached the people worth reaching. And thus far it is clear to me that the effect my work has registered on the people who've read it ... is far more interesting and remarkable than that of all the Harry Potters put together. I guess you can say Fireflies is not for the generic man, woman, and child. I suspect it will never be a bestselling book, but it will sell considerably more than it needs to survive, sell to suit the purposes for which the book was written, and lend credibility to a web site that informs hundreds of thousands. I never attempted to enter the house of social reform through the front door. I put all the critical reports on a blog I developed for relatively covert dissemination by students under the public radar. Aptly dubbed "the black helicopter approach" by one discerning academic, this blog was built for covert operation in a series of localized venues with a close quarters battle mentality. In other words, it will win over the hearts and minds worth winning, one heart ... one mind ... at a time. (Or in some cases, 10 at a time). As reform movements go, this is more of a Navy Seals operation than the 3rd Army's juggernaut into the heart of Berlin. And I continue to find this life I have built for myself as an author / blogger both exhilarating and enriching. I'm no one's prophet (well okay, prophet to a few). I'm no one's savior (alright, some students are grateful for having been rerouted off a career pathway in disrepair). And I'm just a servant (rather than a Son) of God. (In a spiritual sense. Anyone studying my religious observances would never confuse me for a practicing Catholic). But Christ is credited with saying "as I have done, so you must also do," and so after the resurrection of my vocation as a researcher, my first act was to descend into Hell (Usenet) to remind the lost souls there that Heaven and Earth do exist, and that they can be found anywhere but here. Now that may be the only inherently kooky statement I've ever made, but that's what happens when you forage through the wilderness of labored religious analogies. (Taking the bait, one of the stalkers used the preceding analogy to publicly declare that I think myself Christ-like [har har]).

But before news of any venture you undertake hits Usenet, be sure that you can demonstrate that you are loved by your peers, make sure that you can certify that your peers are also well-loved among one another and from third parties accredited, incorporated, or professionally trained in the conferment of love, and generally make lots of money, Nielsen-ranked or Arbitron-rated radio & television appearances, and the bestseller list ... lest the folks in Ruse-net, who see nothing but 'winners' and 'losers' ... 'success' and 'failure' ... make many false statements about your failed careers, marriages, and relationships with your mother. How do they know all this, anyway? Har har.

Before you cut me down to size, at least extend me the courtesy of letting me know what size you want me. Your size? Pass.

Though the group dynamics and persuasion techniques interest me as a social psychologist, it is readily apparent how foolish all this witless zinging is in sci.psychology.psychotherapy. I have no problem with them venting their frustrations in their news group (and even less problems being nominated for kook awards'), but impersonating another one of their victims in posting an off-topic and ad hominem review of a book they never read crosses a line. What we have here is a classic struggle between one man whose work invites controversy and a group of individuals who think they can find some easy lovin' by ganging up on someone invites controversy. Yawn. Desperately needing to feel loved, they created this platform (kook-ology) as a justification for self-assuring strategic alliances. I suppose it's cheaper than therapy. Sci.psychology.psychotherapy has proven itself quite a welfare program for dislocated workers and quadragenarians with empty-nest syndrome. While it would ordinarily be none of my business that she and her accomplices live by the creed "safety in numbers," they should not seek to impose the same creed on persons acting as individuals ... acting as individuals? ... hmm ... and there's your kook nomination."

For more information on the effects of fireflysun.com and Fireflies in the Shadow of the Sun on the psychological community, consult Who's Reading fireflySun.com and the State of the Campaign Address. "I have people who monitor the news groups and put together something analogous to a weekly threat matrix delivered by e-mail. If a threat is deemed material, I am alerted immediately. In the vast majority of instances it's just four or five of the usual suspects pretending to rally around some version of the truth." I asked Ehrenfels what he thinks of the use of lying in 'anti-personnel propopanda: "That's parity for you. If you feel like you're going to lose a knife fight, you pick up a gun. Similarly, lies are a great equalizer. I've learned that a shared lie is as functional as some self-evident truths. That's the way of the SPP stalker. But it's not my goal to ensure a steady flow of steam from my stalkers' ears. I would find doing what they do all so boring really, as I would find engaging them directly rather boring. And what makes it all so disinteresting is that when both sides are restricted to using facts, it's all too easy to dispense with them but, conversely, when they resort to manufacturing truths about your work as well aspects of your character and life about which they know nothing about and which are entirely off topic (e.g. relationships, careers), it becomes impossible to sustain a discussion. They don't destroy their adversaries. And they don't hurt themselves either, because they're anonymous. Just about the only thing they've managed to destroy is sci.psychology.psychotherapy, and some of them have helped to soil the reputation of broader Usenet. Years of flaming have completely eroded public interest in these snooze groups. If you ever thought the truth and nothing but the truth was dull, try listening to lies and nothing but the lies. These are dangerous people who'd do anything not to be perceived as being on the losing end of a lopsided argument," cautioned Ehrenfels, "which is something to keep in mind when their quilt of fabrications out of whole cloth fails to win converts. Besides, all good things come to an end, and unless my book gets misattributed to Shakespeare, it will go out of print someday, and they can declare victory on that day too if they like and throw in the usual trashtalking for good measure. Ever see the fans of some sports teams shake their index fingers to signal 'we're number 1' after their team scores its first touchdown in the fourth quarter to pull within 28. Another day in the life of a stalker."

My stalkers had some Amazon sales statistics for me today. I thought I'd return the favor with some Google usage statistics: All time top posters to Sci.Psychology.Psychotherapy

#POSTS address

Google, Google, Google, Google, Google, Google, Google, Google news, Google news, Google news, Google news, Google news

fireflySun.com Report List

16 Points Memo: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Authors, Scholars Unite to Support Wyatt Ehrenfels: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Teams with Dream Researcher Gail Bixler: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Exposes Our Fear of Exposure Therapy: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Interviews with Internal Correspondent: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Says Psychology Professors Suffer from Professional Analogue of Borderline Personality Disorder: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Student Defies Psychology Professor's Warning Not to Correspond with Wyatt Ehrenfels: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Chides Daniel Dennett for Evangelical Atheism in Psychology: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Argues Psychology Graduate Education Not Worth the Money: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Psychology Professors Acknowledge Student Complaints about Curriculum: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Answers Critics, Campaign of Diversionary Tactics: Wyatt Ehrenfels

American Psychological Association Denies Listserv Members Access to Wyatt Ehrenfels OKTV Broadcast Report: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Talks about the Dissertation Experience: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Discusses a Methodology for Dream Research: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Defends Dreaming from Psychologist Negative Thinking: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Urban E-Zine Entelechy Publishes Wyatt Ehrenfels Essay: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Defends Dream Research against Vaunted Psychology News Group Moderator: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Customizes Probe to Explore Dreaming-Waking Interface: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Teams with Kindred Critic Dennis Fox: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Teams with Psychotherapist Elio Frattaroli: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Teams with Political Scientist John Freie: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Teams with Biologist John Hewitt: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Shows Support for Embattled Psychology Graduate Student: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Counsels Students on True Callings: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Amuses with Proposal of Psychology Graduate Program Insurance: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Says Corrective Statistical Procedure Emblematic of Psychology's Flaws: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Brad Jesness Target of Malicious Psychologists on Usenet: Brad Jesness

Wyatt Ehrenfels Teams with Medal-Winning Author M.J. John: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Critical of Vaunted Cornell Research Claiming Opposites Do NOT Attract: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Criticizes Berkeley Psychology Professors for Left Wing Bias: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Offers Links to Education and Appropriations Subcommittees: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Thunders Away at Psychology's Load-Bearing Premises: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Counsels High School Students on Choice of College Major: Wyatt Ehrenfels

APPIC Match Service Helps Veterans Hospital Psychologists Discriminate against Applicants w/ Disabilities: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Psychology Professional Development at Odds with Adult Maturation: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Republishes Work of College Curriculum Critic and FOX News Writer Wendy McElroy: Wendy McElroy

Wyatt Ehrenfels Likens Psychological Research to Premature Ejaculation: Wyatt Ehrenfels

According to Social Psychologist Wyatt Ehrenfels, Diversity Is Skin Deep, Black-and-White at University of Michigan: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Dismantles Psychology's Standard Defenses against Criticism: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Points to Hypocrisy in Terror Management Research: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Releases Revitalized Pocket Memo: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Publishes Critique in Revolution Issue of New Therapist Magazine: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Is Psychology at Odds with Itself?: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Says Campaign Not Intend to Offend Psychology Majors: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Why Community Access Television Is Coming Around to Wyatt Ehrenfels: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Overview of Wyatt Ehrenfels's Fireflies in the Shadow of the Sun: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Are Psychology Professors Prejudiced against Psyche: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Psychology's Science of Dreams Fails Science and Dreams: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Psychology Graduate Schools Blasted for Culture of Student Character Assassination: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Ode to Psychology Students: Are You Making A Major out of a Molehill: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Multicultural Fetish of Psychology Professors Belie Suppression of Individual Freedom, Ideas in Psychology: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Games without Frontiers: Ehrenfels Depicts Science of Psychology as ADHD: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Uses Evolutionary Theory, Natural Selection to Impugn D-Volving Psychology: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Reveals American Psychological Association as Lobbying Tour de Force: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Shares Bizarre Tale of Application for University Position: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Dreams & Dreaming Frequently Asked Questions: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Discusses Predictive Power of Tornado Dreams: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Releases Preface to Fireflies in the Shadow of the Sun: Wyatt Ehrenfels

In a Drugged States, New Mexico Legislators Give Psychologists Prescriptive Authority: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Fireflies in the Shadow of the Sun Press Release: Katheryn Moyer

Brad Jesness Exposes Malicious Stalking by Psychologists on Usenet: Brad Jesness

Psychology Majors Respond to Wyatt Ehrenfels fireflySun.com: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Offers Personality Taxonomy: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Offers Blueprint for Blighted Psychology: Wyatt Ehrenfels

From Position of Ignorance, APA Official Diverts Attention from/Urges Skepticism for, Wyatt Ehrenfels APPIC Discrimination Report: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Comes to Terms with Roiled Psychology Graduate Student and News Group Moderator: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Responses to Wyatt Ehrenfels Campaign to Reform Psychology: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Independent Publisher Offers Glowing Review of Fireflies in the Shadow of the Sun: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Teams with Psychotherapist Robert Roerich: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Says Psychology Professors Play Games with Rules: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Teams with Physicist Jeff Schmidt: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Malicious Stalking by Psychologists Abusing Psychotherapy News Group: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Reveals Groupthink, Abuse in Psychology Faculty Evaluation of Graduate Students: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Begins Sequel to Fireflies in the Shadow of the Sun: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Exposes Counseling Center Hiring Preference for Gays, Lesbians: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Diagnoses the Diagnosticians with the Shadow DSM: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Prominent UC-Davis Dream Researcher Dodges Wyatt Ehrenfels Draft of Reformers: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Teams with Management Consulting Maven R. Mallory Starr: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Overview of Wyatt Ehrenfels Dream Research with Cancer Patients: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Comments on the Short Falls of Teaching in Psychology: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Popular Psychotherapy All about Controlling Chaos: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Washington National Cathedral Site of Synchronicity in Novel by Social Psychologist: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Comments on the Value of a Degree in Psychology: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Offers Strategy for Self-Science of Dreams: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Attacks Psychology on Two Fronts: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Connie Vaughn Teams with Wyatt Ehrenfels to Explain Why She Is Not a Psychology: Connie Vaughn

Benjamin Willard Elected President of Wyatt Ehrenfels Fan Club: Benjamin Willard

Wyatt Ehrenfels Identifies Flaws in U.S. News Report of Psychology Employment Prospects: Wyatt Ehrenfels