"We'll have to agree to disagree. I was actually really surprised jeep had the perspective he did."

I'll try to clear up what my objection is.

"(Neutrino) If a therapist has strong feelings against MAPs, they're more likely to crinkle up a B4U-ACT questionnaire and throw it in the trash than take the time to write inaccurate answers.

(Matt) I don't undertand. That's also what a therapist who has strong feelings against MAPs would do with a letter from a random MAP seeking services, and it's probably how the ones who didn't respond reacted."

Given two approaches to the survey of therapists, which will produce the most reliable results: one that openly identifies the participants on both ends and asks neutral questions, or one that deceptively pretends to be a pedo seeking treatment, and therefore can't ask neutral questions? I think you've made the assumption that the therapists you're surveying will lie in the first case and not lie in the second, or that a disproportionate number would simply ignore the survey in the first rather than the second. I think the reverse would be much more likely. The therapists being surveyed that are hostile to us would be much more likely (I think) to just SAY SO honestly instead of ignoring the contact if they knew it was a professionally-conducted survey of therapists instead of some damned pervert they don't want any contact with. I think your approach automatically and unavoidably skewed the results you got FAR more than an open above-board survey could have done, even ignoring the potential for harm from the deception. If your concern is how they would respond to b4uact doing the survey, then have some other organisation do it, like gallup or something (which I know would cost money). Bottom line, I don't trust the results you got this way, and I don't think it was a good idea in the first place.