--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > 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.
Vaj means to say, of course, "It's pretty strange for an editor to claim they're different." He's the one claiming there's no distinction between them. But they aren't at all the same, and anyone who seriously believes they are needs their head examined. Especially if they claim to have some expertise in psychology.
