'Adult Baby Life Dynamics' And 'Ab Parents' Seminars

[rosalie.bent]

Was this book peer reviewed at all? Typically credible articles are reviewed by two subject matter experts in a blind review. This ensures that the work is judged based on merit and not the prestige of the author.

Scientific articles are peer reviewed - not books at the level I was writing. Although if you wish to consider the fact that 600 people took part in the original research document and that the final result was reviewed by one well-known AB academic, then perhaps it went thru something similar if not exactly that.

Were the three well-known age-player books reviewed? no.

one question though is WHO would be qualified to be a peer-reviewer? Thats not a veiled criticism, it is a proper question. Who do you think qualifies to be a peer to review AB research?

[warpiper]

You described using sample size and methodology, so I assumed you were talking about data collection in a scientific study. What type of data are you collecting? Just because it is qualitative data and not quantitative does not discount it from being considered scientific data collection regardless of what it is used for. Also the majority of the sources do not fall into the category of credible websites according to any definition of credible websites. As a nurse I have taken entire classes that teach me to evaluate the credibility of articles and websites, and I have to tell you that few of those sources can be called remotely credible so posting them as sources and pretending that they give credibility to your work is kind of silly. I'm not saying that you didn't use them, just saying that most of them don't hold water.

All that said, you ask who would be a good person to do a peer review? I don't know, but don't assume that writing a book makes you qualified.

[Guest *~Andi~*]

Outdated resources? How old are you? Thats the kind of nonsense I hear from teenagers for whom 'ancient music' is 2 year ago. Thomas Speakers work for example is only 30 years old. Do you really think that the fundamentals of AB regression and Diaper attraction/fetish has suddenly changed because of the internet? John Money's work on Lovemaps is also not this century. Do we disregard that as well?

SYNOPSIS?? No the article was not a synopsis. it was a preparatory RESEARCH document distributed to over 600 and responses sought. And I got a lot of responses from which the final product was changed significantly. And it appears that the REVIEWS you read of the book werent of the book but rather the research document.

SOURCES:

http://understanding.infantilism.org [bittergrey] - including the surveys

www.toddlertime.com

www.dailydiapers.com

www.fetlife.com

Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM IV)

Sexual deviance: theory assessment and treatment D. Richard Laws

www.idiaper.me

The Millenium Diaper Survey

www.clarewinnicott.net

www.experienceproject.com

How to become a bed wetter [sakura.ne.jp]

www.mednet2002.org/abstracts/

www.adisc.org

www.liljennie.com

www.23nlpeople.com

Lovemaps: Dr John Money

Sexual Infantilism in Adults: Thomas Speaker

In additino to these there are numerous case studies and anecdotal events that are quoted and cited throughout the book

Im 32 years old, and Im a teacher. I hold a Bachelors degree in education, and Im currently working on my Masters degree in Reading Education with special certifications as an MRT and ELL teaching specialist. I am a member of both Phi Theta Kappa and Alpha Chi honor societies... not to mention Sigma Kappa Delta, which is an ENGLISH honor society. Every class Ive taken speaks to the nature of what is credible in a literary environment. Outdated resources are not credible. The reason why is because society advances, so things that were written over a certain time period ago lose there spice because they need to be updated with the times that we are currently in. We as a society are not who we were 30 years ago. This applies across the board. So when feel the need to attack me, you might wanna step back and talk to someone who isnt credibly certified like I am. Dont believe me, ask a college professor about what Im saying. So for your final statement in that quote about John Lovemap.... yea I discount the validity of his stuff too for teh simple reason... its not current. Especially if its not even of this century. Doesnt mean it might not be repotable or that you couldnt reference it... but if its what your basing your information on... uhh yea no. You need more resources than just that.

Now... the synopsis of your book is nto the actual freaking book. Its an idea of what its about. So unless you started out talking about mashed potatoes and then switched it to your current topic, the synopsis hasnt changed. As far as the reviews go, I stated Id spoken to people in real time about it as well as read the reviews. Sis I ever state that they were negative as it appears you are trying to pawn me off as saying... nope. I just said I read them. Ive read the ones on Amazon, Barnes and Noble, the ones in response to your reseach propaganda as you so neatly put it, so know what your talking about before you assume. Even after all that, I chose not to read it, because as an educated person, I felt it was opinion based and so I chose not to read it.

Your resources that you have put up, I will look into them later when I am more awake, but upon first review and after what youve stated.... my initial thoughts say it seems like its outdated material and a bunch of stuff on the internet, as well as surverys... which might hold some stature if the research in other areas is there to support it. However, all of this, including your surveys, can strongly be biase based solely on experience and opinion and your interpretation of our surveys and whatnot.

Now I leave you with this, before I take to trying for sleep again... what exactly are your credentials? Are you a dr? What degrees do you hold that might make you more certifiable where this vague topic is concerned. Also, you might want to, back off with the attacking and insults. I havent done that to you, and I do NOT appreciate you doing that shit to me. Im having a civilized conversation but if you want to resort to attacking me then Im kinda over you. Your 61? Grow up and deal with what youve put yourself out there for. Thats not an attack by the way... its sage advice.

[rosalie.bent]

You described using sample size and methodology, so I assumed you were talking about data collection in a scientific study. What type of data are you collecting? Just because it is qualitative data and not quantitative does not discount it from being considered scientific data collection regardless of what it is used for. Also the majority of the sources do not fall into the category of credible websites according to any definition of credible websites. As a nurse I have taken entire classes that teach me to evaluate the credibility of articles and websites, and I have to tell you that few of those sources can be called remotely credible so posting them as sources and pretending that they give credibility to your work is kind of silly. I'm not saying that you didn't use them, just saying that most of them don't hold water.

All that said, you ask who would be a good person to do a peer review? I don't know, but don't assume that writing a book makes you qualified.

This is where we get back to the age-old problem of where is the data to analyse? In the absence of gold-plated data sources (surely you include the DSM, a masters thesis and the Lovemaps book etc etc as gold-plated?) then we have to use what is there which is primarily anecdotal data. Bittergreys surveys are far from perfect but they are vastly better than the very few alternatives. And anecdotal evidence is not without value especially when used extensively to get grouped results.

I find it odd and a little disturbing to have my citations, sources and methodologies questioned extensively and ad nauseum but NOT my results or hypotheses. And the reason? Because nobody who criticises the book has actually read it and so dont even know what my conclusions or hypotheses are! They dont even know that it ISNT a research or academic book but rather a guideline for committed couples wanting to integrate AB into their relationships via the parent/child model. Not exactly a paragon of intellectual integrity on display there.

It is pointless to complain about my data sources if you cannot even begin to suggest better ones. It is equally pointless to expect a peer-review on a book when you cannot even identify a single qualified 'peer' to do so. And that is without mentioning that it is not a book even in need of peer-review.

Michael and I are preparing a detailed survey on ABDL behaviours etc and are hoping to have it distributed far and wide and are looking for all the help we can get in putting it in the hands of as many ABs as we can - not just the denizens of social media sites like this. I would like to reach 2000 people and avoid as much self-selection bias as we can. Any suggestions you have on distributing this would be appreciated.

Any thoughts or willingness to help even in beta-testing the survey?

[Guest *~Andi~*]

You described using sample size and methodology, so I assumed you were talking about data collection in a scientific study. What type of data are you collecting? Just because it is qualitative data and not quantitative does not discount it from being considered scientific data collection regardless of what it is used for. Also the majority of the sources do not fall into the category of credible websites according to any definition of credible websites. As a nurse I have taken entire classes that teach me to evaluate the credibility of articles and websites, and I have to tell you that few of those sources can be called remotely credible so posting them as sources and pretending that they give credibility to your work is kind of silly. I'm not saying that you didn't use them, just saying that most of them don't hold water.

All that said, you ask who would be a good person to do a peer review? I don't know, but don't assume that writing a book makes you qualified.

what he said.

[rosalie.bent]

Im 32 years old, and Im a teacher. I hold a Bachelors degree in education, and Im currently working on my Masters degree in Reading Education with special certifications as an MRT and ELL teaching specialist. I am a member of both Phi Theta Kappa and Alpha Chi honor societies... not to mention Sigma Kappa Delta, which is an ENGLISH honor society. Every class Ive taken speaks to the nature of what is credible in a literary environment. Outdated resources are not credible. The reason why is because society advances, so things that were written over a certain time period ago lose there spice because they need to be updated with the times that we are currently in. We as a society are not who we were 30 years ago. This applies across the board. So when feel the need to attack me, you might wanna step back and talk to someone who isnt credibly certified like I am. Dont believe me, ask a college professor about what Im saying. So for your final statement in that quote about John Lovemap.... yea I discount the validity of his stuff too for teh simple reason... its not current. Especially if its not even of this century. Doesnt mean it might not be repotable or that you couldnt reference it... but if its what your basing your information on... uhh yea no. You need more resources than just that.

Now... the synopsis of your book is nto the actual freaking book. Its an idea of what its about. So unless you started out talking about mashed potatoes and then switched it to your current topic, the synopsis hasnt changed. As far as the reviews go, I stated Id spoken to people in real time about it as well as read the reviews. Sis I ever state that they were negative as it appears you are trying to pawn me off as saying... nope. I just said I read them. Ive read the ones on Amazon, Barnes and Noble, the ones in response to your reseach propaganda as you so neatly put it, so know what your talking about before you assume. Even after all that, I chose not to read it, because as an educated person, I felt it was opinion based and so I chose not to read it.

Your resources that you have put up, I will look into them later when I am more awake, but upon first review and after what youve stated.... my initial thoughts say it seems like its outdated material and a bunch of stuff on the internet, as well as surverys... which might hold some stature if the research in other areas is there to support it. However, all of this, including your surveys, can strongly be biase based solely on experience and opinion and your interpretation of our surveys and whatnot.

Now I leave you with this, before I take to trying for sleep again... what exactly are your credentials? Are you a dr? What degrees do you hold that might make you more certifiable where this vague topic is concerned. Also, you might want to, back off with the attacking and insults. I havent done that to you, and I do NOT appreciate you doing that shit to me. Im having a civilized conversation but if you want to resort to attacking me then Im kinda over you. Your 61? Grow up and deal with what youve put yourself out there for. Thats not an attack by the way... its sage advice.

There is nothing 'sage' about rejecting any data or theory that is older than 5 years which is what you seem to be saying. Science of all disciplines still works on principles espoused sometimes centuries ago. In fact your claim that society evolves and thus invalidates any previous learning is patently ridiculous if not laughable. Do you think that behavioural studies from 20 years ago are mysteriously invalid now? What garbage is that? One of the truisms of behaviour is that it remains essentially the same. The same paraphilias, psychoses and other behaviuoral challenges existed 100 years ago in pretty much the same form then as now. One of the things I notice in fact is how AB behaviour is still essentially the same now as it was 30 years ago. The internet changed many things and certianly the exchange of information but there is little evidence to suggest that it has in any way changed paraphilic behaviour. None at all.

You sound like you are an educated person so I am still wondering why you insist on valuing your opinion above that of stated fact. You wont read my book because IN YOUR OPINION, it is just my experience of one AB. Of course your evidence for that is nil and flies in the face of what I have repeatedly said to you and others which means that you simply dont beleive me - which is another opinion. In fact, all of the criticisms of me and my book amount to nothing more than opinion. Factual rebuttal??? not on here! Discussion of methodologies and determinations? no, its much easier just to attack me for something or other.

If you are going to dispense with any data or research that is older that 5 years (or whatever) then you are going to ignore the vast quantity of accumulated knowlege. Even the errors teach us something, but you seem willing to throw away everything that has come before in pursuit of the latest fad or craze or yes, even research. I am sure Einstein would be thrilled to know that you dont accept his theories because they are 'old'.

Oh... I just re-read your post and you are referring to LITERATURE, not science. Pity that you dont know the difference between them. Literature REFLECTS society. Science describes the world in which that society lives and the behaviour of its inhabitants.

[rosalie.bent]

what he said.

I think I was just hit with a 12 year old retort...

[Guest *~Andi~*]

Maybe some of what youve written here should be placed in the reviews on some of the sites your book is available on. I simply agreed with what Piper said. As far as your other insults on me go, why bother going into it with you. You sound as self convinced as my bipolar mother does in some of her idiocies. Youre not a dr, you have no backup to what you are saying, and until you can prove otherwise, your rantings are simply that.. rantings. Ive not attacked you and Im done talking to you because you irritate me based on your inabilities to accept criticism, as well as your quick and harsh rebuttal on any and everything you dont deem beneficial to yourself. You seem like you just want to see your book and screw the rest. Good luck with that. im educated, but I wont lower myself to your standards because based on the majority of the posts you have made.. we can all see who the 12 year old is. have a nice day Rosalie.

[warpiper]

There is nothing 'sage' about rejecting any data or theory that is older than 5 years which is what you seem to be saying. Science of all disciplines still works on principles espoused sometimes centuries ago. In fact your claim that society evolves and thus invalidates any previous learning is patently ridiculous if not laughable. Do you think that behavioural studies from 20 years ago are mysteriously invalid now? What garbage is that? One of the truisms of behaviour is that it remains essentially the same. The same paraphilias, psychoses and other behaviuoral challenges existed 100 years ago in pretty much the same form then as now. One of the things I notice in fact is how AB behaviour is still essentially the same now as it was 30 years ago. The internet changed many things and certianly the exchange of information but there is little evidence to suggest that it has in any way changed paraphilic behaviour. None at all.

Actually, I do question data that is outdated, and not just for the simple reason that it is outdated. 40 years ago, homosexuality was still considered a mental disease by the DSM, does one recall? As for the argument that you are making in your head about how the DSM has undergone revisions for the DSM IV or 5, I then bring your attention to the categories needed to diagnose Oppositional Defiant Disorder, which could be used to diagnose every teenage anarchist as having a mental disease, when the likelihood is that they have a very valid reason to be against the establishment. Science is changing every day, and the way that the psychology community has come to view fetishes and paraphilias has changed drastically over the past 20 years with the advent of the internet. Where once fetishes were shunned and tried to overcome at all costs, nowadays they are accepted as a normal part of human sexuality, and treatment only occurs if they are causing the individual to suffer from the condition.

[rosalie.bent]

Actually, I do question data that is outdated, and not just for the simple reason that it is outdated. 40 years ago, homosexuality was still considered a mental disease by the DSM, does one recall? As for the argument that you are making in your head about how the DSM has undergone revisions for the DSM IV or 5, I then bring your attention to the categories needed to diagnose Oppositional Defiant Disorder, which could be used to diagnose every teenage anarchist as having a mental disease, when the likelihood is that they have a very valid reason to be against the establishment. Science is changing every day, and the way that the psychology community has come to view fetishes and paraphilias has changed drastically over the past 20 years with the advent of the internet. Where once fetishes were shunned and tried to overcome at all costs, nowadays they are accepted as a normal part of human sexuality, and treatment only occurs if they are causing the individual to suffer from the condition.

im not defending old articles or theoriesom opposition to current research. Im just not dumping them BECAUSE they are old. 'Old' doesnt mean outdated and yes, the DSM has made some major blunders and the DSM 5 promises to continue that awful trend. In fact, in my book I said exactly that - something a reader of it would know. The DSM's definition of paraphilia is pathetic and hopelessly useless for discussion on AB issues (or most fetishes or paraphilias). the DSM was wrong on homosexuality just as the new DSM is making enormous mistakes on paraphilias, definitions of addiction and even the definition of hebephilia as a mental illness.

I fully accept that science is changing every day and the older the article the more careful you need to be. That is commonsense, however discarding everything just because it is X years old is scientific idiocy. As expressed earlier, the Special Theory of Relativity is 100 years old but I dont see science discarding it because it is old. I object strongly to the discarding of theories and studies simply because they are old and especially when they are to be replaced with nothing at all. To criticise and debunk Thomas Speaker's thesis for no other reason than its age (while conveniently agreeing with its conclusion!) is folly. And to reject something that is a mere 30 years old is even sillier. The scientific process is one of 'standing on the shoulders of giants'. Psychology and psychiatry credits its early pioneers as the greats even as they now debunk large amounts of their early work and conclusions. That doesnt make Freud useless or even some of his work to no benefit.

Wait until some of you write a scholarly article and then 10 years later some upstart dismisses it as rubbish for no other reason than because it is 'old'.

Let me quote you "Where once fetishes were shunned and tried to overcome at all costs, nowadays they are accepted as a normal part of human sexuality, and treatment only occurs if they are causing the individual to suffer from the condition" This is exactly the summation that Thomas Speaker came to in 1980 in direct opposition to the established belief of the day. And this is the report that is being rejected by some of you for no other than because it is 'old'.

I would hope that the summation of a man's (or woman's) work might be based on the sum of its contents rather than the date on the cover. That is certainly the science I learned.

[Repaid1]

I would just like to add:

1. Bri sure likes Hooters

2. Guys in "full Baby garb" still are surrounded by hot chicks who seem not to be offended, and believe it or not Hooters is a family restaurant.

3. If I wore a diaper and a onsie out, say down to subway? And the guy in front of me had his ass showing cause his pants were down to his knees.. which one if not both are offensive to the general public and why. One is clothed, one is not. I don't like stereotypes, but sometimes they have merit.

To me both are expressing themselves for whatever reason. I don't form opinions on how someone is dressed, nor do I conclude that they might be too poor to afford proper clothing. It hurts no one to have them see me dressed as a baby, no more than seeing a real baby in a diaper does. Clothes are clothes. What others may perceive, does not make it fact...and I for one do not care what others perceive. 99% of the general public would perceive that a adult dressed as a toddler is in costume for something. They would not know the truth, therefor they would not be offended.

To sum it up, Guys dressed as baby girls get the hot chicks Okay carry on. And no I don't go to church in a baby dress, but I would like to know that I could.

[curiositykilledthecat]

Old data is good to have on hand when trying to understand the evolution of research, however using outdated measurements to diagnose or critique is not going to be valid. It's similar to how the measurement a doctor used to label a child as retarded and thus doom him or her for life was how far down the eyes sloped from the forehead. Now yes this is common with Downs but this is also common with premies, so yeah not a valid form of science to make a diagnosis. Science is imperfect and evolves, sometimes for the bteer or sometimes for the worse.

[curiositykilledthecat]

In regards to attire, where do we draw the line? We have plenty of poorly dressed, innapropriately dressed and hygenically challenged vanilla people(and that's just at the entance of walmart) out there now who are an attack on anyone's sense of taste. How is wearing a onesie with overalls or an adult "romper" with the shirt and shorts built into it. If the size 20 woman is allowed to stretch and mangle that size 6 shirt she has on then how is that less offensive to people? Now i don't think we should ever get to the point that the streets look like a defunct pride parade 24 hours a day but simply wearing "little" attire out in public is no more offensive than what is already out there. I nor anyone else should be forced to see someone's diaper any more than I should be forced to see the three pairs of boxers that Ray-Ray has on in front of me. This is just dealing with the societal contract and not even neccesarily with personal tastes.

[BriGuy]

How can you not like hooters?? Cold beers, plenty of T and A and mediocre wings. It's great!

[~*PrincessZozo*~]

The hooters by my parents closed down and was replaced with Chick-Fil-A. I find that funny.

I've read both your "e-books" (the ones you were handing out for free) and if my memory serves There was a lot of talk from your point of view about people in your life Rosaline. Also, you gathered data from Adisc, A site for teens. I'd trust any research from that site about as much as I'd trust Stanley as the spokesperson of the AB lifestyle. (no offence).

[sarah_ab]

i actually did not reject the entire paper if you read the last part i said what i read i agreed with that most people into abdl dont need therapy which is what the autho concluded as well....

i simply point out a few things i took notice of .... the outdatedness of it and the fact that you refer to DR speakers thesis there in implying it was written by a dr when at the time it was written it was not ....

but if you are goig to talk about doin research you need to be able to explain the type of research you are doing and you need to be able to defend your particular methods and dont come to an ab site and think people are not going to question your methods.... as im sure you habe come across in you 600 was it? interviews we are not are mindless sheep who follow along without question....

how on earth did you find the time to iterview 600 people in the short time youve been a member of these sites? or did you ise other names?

[DailyDi]

Love the garlic parm boneless wings at Hooters

[curiositykilledthecat]

I haven't been to hooter is a long time but my last trip is a story worth telling.

One Sunday morning at a church I no longer attend, the Pastor's wife was doing her usual flaming the men in the church in one breath and then not allowing any of the men in the church to actually do anything that would invalidate her point.(Every time the men's ministry outgrew the woman's ministry in size or outreach, "God" suddenly changed his mind about having the men meet). This particular sunday her sermon was about how the men failed at leadership and how women are more inherently spiritual and how the men need to step up and blah...blah...blah... more anti-man stuff. When church service had ended out of the blue my buddy Jon, who is the quietest and mist non vocal dissident I've ever met chimes in, "That's it, screw this shit, we're going to Hooters!" I fell over laughing and then procceded to eat wings.

Now I have no beef with their ministry, at the end of the day its like a business, if you don't like working there, either change your attitude or change your employer.

Back to the topic of the thread.

[warpiper]

Song Lyric from Chris Rock's "No Sex in the Champagne Room:"

"Nobody goes to Hooters for wings."

That is all.

-piper

[sarah_ab]

i heard hooters food isnt that good

[BriGuy]

It's not. The view ain't half bad.

[rosalie.bent]

The hooters by my parents closed down and was replaced with Chick-Fil-A. I find that funny.

I've read both your "e-books" (the ones you were handing out for free) and if my memory serves There was a lot of talk from your point of view about people in your life Rosaline. Also, you gathered data from Adisc, A site for teens. I'd trust any research from that site about as much as I'd trust Stanley as the spokesperson of the AB lifestyle. (no offence).

And here is the case in point. it simply doesnt matter what I say about the research for the book, some will simply say that it is about me and my baby and nothing else. I also lasted on ADISC for I think 3 days before realising it was a pointless site where the oldest person on there was probably 20 and the opinions were very close to worthless - pretty much as everyone else has discovered.

[DailyDi]

You know I don't have a problem with your book. But your negativity and judgement astounds me.

[rosalie.bent]

In regards to attire, where do we draw the line? We have plenty of poorly dressed, innapropriately dressed and hygenically challenged vanilla people(and that's just at the entance of walmart) out there now who are an attack on anyone's sense of taste. How is wearing a onesie with overalls or an adult "romper" with the shirt and shorts built into it. If the size 20 woman is allowed to stretch and mangle that size 6 shirt she has on then how is that less offensive to people? Now i don't think we should ever get to the point that the streets look like a defunct pride parade 24 hours a day but simply wearing "little" attire out in public is no more offensive than what is already out there. I nor anyone else should be forced to see someone's diaper any more than I should be forced to see the three pairs of boxers that Ray-Ray has on in front of me. This is just dealing with the societal contract and not even neccesarily with personal tastes.

It is a complex question and issue and I think some people have simplified it to little more than "I can do what I want to do" with zero regard for consequences or other peoples reactions/rights. Sure, we would all love a world where ABs could happily go around outside as they now do inside with no offence and no consquences.But we cant and nor can most other people.

What happens now to well-known people who are outed as 'diaper freaks' by the media? Crucifixion! What do you think happens in many social groups where one person is outed as an AB? In many cases it puts a strain on things or severs the person from the group. Dressing in public as an AB can have terrible consequences, not the least from being arrested for being indecent in public (dont define the law simplisticly or purely by YOUR jurisdiction) to being socially isolated. And Im not sure that being beaten up by the local hoods is exactly on everyone's 'to do' list. What about friends and family? What do THEY think about you dressing as an AB in public, because it reflects on them as well, like it or not. And then there is also the risk of being noticed by the media and getting your AB side displayed to your entire city or country. That is not a generally good career move if you are trying to be a banker or even worse, a teacher.

I just think that some of the comments here are very naive, but what is worse, they try to pass off as general advice to others what MIGHT work for them in their particular circumstances. Maybe you live in a city that doesnt care what you wear. Perhaps you dont have a career worth worrying about or a public reputation to protect. Perhaps you dont have vanilla friends or family who you love enough to consider. But most people do.

Choosing to be overtly AB is not something you can CTRL-Z and simply undo. Its a one-way street. Once you are out, you are out. A little wisdom could be applied that goes beyond 'its everyone elses problem, not mine'.

[rosalie.bent]

You know I don't have a problem with your book. But your negativity and judgement astounds me.

You may be confusing 'negativity' with 'reality'. And you may also be confusing 'judgement' with 'opinion'. Some of the opinions and beliefs expressed on here sometimes appear to come from a parallel universe.

And maybe you would have a better understanding of what it is like for me if a hundred or so people spent a lot of time attacking you personally for having a DD website and making outrageous allegations about all the evil things that happen there without (of course) ever having logged on to DD and actually found out what DOES happen. This is my regular experience where I cannot make a thread about any topic without the usual suspects attacking me for perceived faults in a book they havent even read. And being criticised for my research methodology by a group that happily discards any research more than ten years old doesnt exactly build up their credibility.

I am not judgemental. I hold opinions and then defend them - just like everyone else. 'being judgemental' is a lot more than simply disagreeing with someone. It actually involves casting VALUE judgements on their opinions.

As I have said before, I am trying to build up the store of knowledge about AB and also to help give people skills to cope with what can be a difficult problem at times for many. Such goals are inconsistent with pandering to false beliefs and supporting potentially destructive behaviour. I dont expect you to agree with me all the time. But I do expect a modicum of respect from everyone just as you demand it from me.

Oh, and a little bit of help occasionally would be nice as well!