--- 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.
I am not sure i agree. To assert in one breath that one has the right and sanction to declare one "crazy" in Florida -- (re)establishing their credentials, and in the next (a few days later) to assert, on line, to a virtual stranger, that based on some posts that they are i) crazy, and ii) and recommending powerful psychotropic drugs, seems a bit unprofessional, IMO. But what do I know. Ask the Florida licensing board.
