Seems this researcher put Derek Logue (like the bug he is) under glass and had not so glowing reviews about this freak. Funny thing after all these years, Derek doesn't link (anywhere) to this observation about him..
Seems to Derek, he thinks this paper is an affirmation of his worthless positions and accuses me of interpreting it incorrectly. I personally think the guy is a hack, but his description of Logue and his background (
""Additionally, one out of three victims who became abusers (Logue) had a history of being cruel to
animals in their childhoods"""" (Bouvier 2003:446).
