--- In [email protected], Bhairitu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > authfriend wrote: > > --- In [email protected], Bhairitu <noozguru@> wrote: > > > >> authfriend wrote: > >> > >>> --- In [email protected], Peter <drpetersutphen@> > > wrote: > >>> > >>>> Dude, with all respect, you need to be back on your > >>>> Seroquel. I kid you not. You have symptoms of a mild > >>>> psychosis. > >>>> > >>> Unethical *in the extreme* for a mental health > >>> professional to publically attempt a diagnosis > >>> of psychopathology via someone's posts on a Web > >>> forum, *especially* as a putdown. > >>> > >>> And that's what it was, a putdown. If Peter had > >>> been seriously concerned for the person's mental > >>> health, he could have communicated with him > >>> privately. > >>> > >>> This is utterly inexcusable. > >>> > >> Big deal! Everyone here knows Willie is a nutcase. You > >> should from all your years on AMT. > >> > > Well, no, I don't actually know if he has a psychosis, > > and neither does anybody else (including Peter). I'm > > strongly inclined to believe, in fact, that he does > > all the crazy-appearing stuff quite deliberately just > > to annoy everybody--i.e., he's a troll. I don't see > > any hint that he isn't fully in touch with consensus > > reality; he just likes to pretend the rest of us > > aren't in touch with it. It's a game with him. > > > > Being a total jerk doesn't necessarily mean you're > > psychotic. > > > > But even if he WERE psychotic, it would STILL be > > unethical for Peter to deliver that diagnosis > > publically, and ESPECIALLY for the purpose of venting > > his frustration--because he's a credentialed > > professional, and his word therefore carries much > > more weight than anything the rest of us might say. > > I don't agree. I certainly didn't take Peter's comment as a > diagnosis but a casual aside.
But telling someone they have psychotic symptoms can't be a "casual aside" coming from someone we all know is a professional, by definition. You may not have taken his diagnosis *seriously*, but he sure didn't go to any trouble to ensure everyone would know he was kidding--to the contrary. He tried to make it sound as though he *was* serious. You don't like Peter because he > is critical of TM and so you jumped on him. That is your normal > MO around here. That isn't why I don't like Peter. I agree with much of what he says about the movement. And I would object just as strenuously to what he did even if we were the greatest of pals. (You may remember I dumped on Michael Goodman awhile back for a nasty bit of hypocrisy in the way he had attacked Vaj. It may be comforting to think I have such a simplistic MO, but the record doesn't bear it out.) > If Willie is faking it then he has been wasting a lot of his > energy.... for years. Agreed. But apparently he gets something out of it. > But then I call this the Funny Farm Lounge and everyone must > be nuts here. Must be all those cell towers. :)
