Comments on: Advanced look at article to be published in December, 2005

By: Vladimir

Vladimir — Wed, 14 Sep 2005 21:37:00 +0000

one more thing. when you name 11 tools from Shildo et al, you miss one (j), so you have only 10

Sorry for my mistakes in English, too 🙂

By: Vladimir

Vladimir — Wed, 14 Sep 2005 20:25:00 +0000

Dear Warren,

I`ve read carefully your article and really glad that you have done this research.

I have translated some parts of it into Russian and plan to publish it at our site.

Still I want to make some remarks.

I understand that you were writing to show that reorientation therapy does positive effect, and because of this you have used the same measurement tools as Liddle.

But don`t you think that it`s just a waste of time to convince the opposite side with their own arms instead of developing new tools for those who are already convinced?

For me, for ex., it`ll be more helpful if you try to find which particular steps of tech. 14, 16 & 17 give more positive results and which simply do not work. Perhaps, if you could show what really works it would be more impressive for the gay-affirming party also.

Only when you identify these steps, you can show that smb. who is in opposition, that he did not take some crucial steps and because of this failed.

Perhaps it was half-done in Shildo & Shroeder study, but it looks unfinished. The books of reorientation therapists such as J.Nikolosi or the sites as PeopleCanChange also contain such data, but sometimes just quick and at the same time qualitive scientific review needed.

Inspite of all the critique I want to thank you for all research you are doing and to wich you peace from above!

By: grantdale

grantdale — Fri, 09 Sep 2005 20:52:00 +0000

You would only be violating the identities if you released them to someone without informing the person. We understand this, and firmly live it day by day. Ask them.

Skeptical, me??? If it’s been sustained this long, rest in comfort knowing it can be sustained awhile longer. Even I was an agnostic about gravity until that awful ballooning accident off the Malay Peninsula. I decided not to trust hot air at that point. And still don’t.

By: Throckmorton

Throckmorton — Fri, 09 Sep 2005 20:41:00 +0000

I can’t say much more about the identities of the participants without risking a violation of confidentiality but believe it or not, the number 6 (at the time) is still correct even with your expanded definition. For many of them, the only person at the time who knew they were ex-gay was me.

Regarding follow up, I intend to do this as best I can for a follow up report. So just keep your skepticism alive for awhile longer. Stay tuned.

By: grantdale

grantdale — Fri, 09 Sep 2005 20:27:00 +0000

/sigh

Warren if I wasn’t clear, I apologise. Perhaps I should not have used slang. (on a blog???)

I wanted to know how many would suffer some consequence (instinsic or extrinsic) if they said something that indicated to others that they were still homosexually interested/attracted/aroused/whatever. I’m not sure how else I can word this other than turning to legaleeze. I’m not interested to know you interviewed Alan Chambers. His response we already can predict, for now.

And don’t you think the knowing how many are STILL exgay is the question??? These intervies were 3+ years ago.

Without you placing these names off with a trustworthy someone else for oversight, how will anyone ever accept what you report? Actually SOME will, I’m sure.

This isn’t a matter of you being an honest person or not (that doesn’t even come into it) – it’s basic verifiable research techniques. Hand the data over to an “enemy”, and then allow anyone compare notes in 5 years time.

I presume you’re still contemplating the other questions, in between enlightening the sprog of GCC feepayers 🙂