The lack of **** filter/superior attitude/condescending tone were a problem, but a trivial problem. The real problem with RR, that you folks either do not recognize, or simply don't think is as significant as others do, is that RR was giving definitive medical advice while falsely labeling himself a "practitioner" or "clinician." During my initial visits to this site, I incorrectly thought he was an authority figure, like Dr. Eskapa or Dr. Sinclair. He was giving out definitive medical advice both privately through PMs (I received one myself) and on the board. Moreover, the advice he gave at times was flatly incorrect. These facts go far beyond being an obnoxious blow-hard who lacks a filter, and raise significant health/safety issues, IMO.

I just posted for the first time today. Thank you for the warning. The last thing I need is someone who is disingenuous and preys on new members.
Thanks for all the support so far.

He is now banned. So no worries.

Bob

Nick ,

In the e mail I received from RR after his ban he was troubled that you said he claimed to be a "practitioner " . Whereas he said his exact term was " researcher
attempting to determine best practices " , and adds that it's a business term not amedical term . Does this make a difference to you ? How to you regard such a phrase ?I don't have the email you evidently got , did he state "practioner" ?

OK, let's let RR sink his own boat. The word he used was "practitioner" and he is LYING to you. This PM to me from RR really says it all about RR and his attitude, where he tells me, "you are a big boy now" and refers to the twenty or thirty times I "fell off the wagon." As I have said before, his contempt, his know-it-all-attitude, and his lack of bullshit filter are trivial. HOWEVER, falsely labeling himself a "practitioner" is FRAUD. It is especially dangerous when he is consistently PMing newbies with advice; advice that has, on occasion, been contrary to the teachings of Dr. Sinclair. Here is his first ever PM to me, where he completely misunderstood my original point and offered me some advice when I wasn't looking for advice. I was merely stating my opinion that some people who are at high risk for relapsing, who are currently "white knuckling it" while abstaining, and who do not drink at high-risk levels, may very well want to consider trying TSM. Here is his response where he clearly calls himself a "practitioner." (And an "ethical practitioner" at that, how ironic.) Anyone who is new to the board would read this and falsely assume that RR is an authority along the lines of Dr. Eskapa or Dr. Sinclair. Judge for yourself:

Hi, there. I think I can shed a little light here. Dr. Eskapa is taking the safe and ethical path here. If you're already drinking, then there is no risk to TSM. If you aren't drinking, then TSM has a 20% chance that it won't work for you, and an unknown risk of long term health issues caused by normal alcohol consumption, including death. Dr. Eskapa can't take that risk for you, and he certainly wouldn't suggest you fall off the wagon just so you can try this.

HOWEVER, and this is a big however, you're a big boy now and can make your own decisions. Learn the risk, make your own judgement. If you're going to fall off the wagon anyway (like you did the previous twenty or thirty times), then TSM is something to consider when you get there. People's inability to stay on the wagon is why TSM was researched and discovered in the first place.

But if you're not currently drinking, this has to be your decision based on considerations that only you can weigh. You won't find Dr. Eskapa or any other ethical practitioner (myself included) RECOMMENDING that you start drinking in order to try TSM.

I hope this helps,

Best

Robert

Subject: Question from someone who is currently not drinking

OK , enough said . Fair enough . "I see ", said the blind man .