I have now had a threat relayed to me back-channel that if the criticism of Karen Woodall by people does not stop,
“…there is consideration of complaints to Police and regulatory authorities about your Posts.”
Here is the full threat that was delivered to me by a supposed “friend” and ally:
“The debate has now provoked such abuse and harassment from the public that there is consideration of complaints to Police and regulatory authorities about your Posts.”
I am being threatened in order to silence you… a message delivered to me back-channel by a supposed “friend” and ally that if I don’t act to silence your criticism of Karen Woodall then I will face “complaints to Police and regulatory authorities” about my Posts.
Apparently, we are not allowed to criticize Karen Woodall. We must all accept what she says without question, criticism, or debate.
Do I care about the threat? Not one bit. There is nothing in my posts that is problematic on either legal or regulatory grounds.
But I want to be clear, criticizing Karen Woodall is now dangerous. I have been put on notice that I face legal retaliation against me if targeted parents continue to criticize Karen Woodall. The threat is designed to induce me to silence you.
I don’t care about the threat to me… bring it. But if I am now at risk, then that means that you are now at risk too. It has become dangerous to criticize Karen Woodall. If you criticize Karen Woodall you may face legal retaliation. Be careful. Criticizing Karen Woodall is dangerous.
This threat has now been made directly to me back-channel by a supposed “friend.” I am passing it along. Do not criticize Karen Woodall. She will not abide criticism. She will retaliate against critics to silence them. Be careful.
Do not criticize Karen Woodall.
And my offer still stands for a professional level discussion of the pathology:
At this point, Karen Woodall is not relevant to a professional-level discussion of the issues. The only thing that matters is a solution to the pathology. I don’t care how may angels can dance on the head of a pin. Until Karen Woodall describes a path to a solution using the Gardnerian eight diagnostic symptoms, she is not relevant to a professional-level discussion.
I describe in comprehensive detail the path to the solution using the Bowlby-Minuchin-Beck model of AB-PA:
We are going to enact this solution. We begin with a return to standard and established constructs and principles of professional psychology. From this professional foundation, we are going to establish professional standards of practice for the assessment, diagnosis, and treatment of attachment-related pathology surrounding divorce (AB-PA). Once we establish this ground baseline for professional competence, we will then move into establishing professional expertise.
The Gardnerian PAS “experts” are simply obstructionists (describe the path to a solution using the Gardnerian PAS diagnostic model), and they are quickly moving into irrelevancy, and actually they have already arrived at irrelevancy.
Karen Woodall is dangerous. She will not abide criticism. Do not criticize Karen Woodall. Allow her to recede into irrelevancy. We are moving on into the solution without her.
And Karen… describe your path to a solution using the Gardnerian PAS diagnostic model. The only thing that is relevant is the path to the solution. Describe your proposed path to the solution – or recede into irrelevancy.
Do not criticize Karen Woodall. Not because it places me at risk. I’m fine. But because it places you at risk.
The Garnderian PAS “experts” are not relevant. Until they describe a path to a solution using the Gardnerian PAS diagnostic model, they are not relevant to a professional-level discussion.
Craig Childress, Psy.D.
Clinical Psychologist, PSY 18857