--- In [email protected], "tertonzeno" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > ---But it's also strange for an editor to banter back and forth > endlessly as in: [J = Judy, M = John Manning]: > > J: Yes you are! > M: No I'm not! > J: Yes you are! > M: No I'm not! > J: Yes you are! > M: No I'm not! > etc.
I don't know where you get that. I happen to agree with Judy on this issue. > > endlessly, though it is rather amusing; I like it to a certain > extent, it's different. > > In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], Vaj <vajranatha@> 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. > > >
