On Aug 31, 2007, at 12:54 PM, Bhairitu wrote:
> 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. You don't like Peter because he is critical of TM and so you jumped on him. That is your normal MO around here.
Precisely. It is not a formal diagnosis anymore than Barry 1.0's casual remarks on past events are historical research.
For someone who claims to have a career in editing, it's pretty strange when you can't distinguish one from the other on a consistent basis.
