You can take the peter out of the doctor, but you can't take the doctor out of Peter?
I've been watching this thread with some interest. My first reaction was to defend Peter, so I took a little more time to see if I could get around my personal bias of friendship. (We are not exactly tapping our feet in adjacent stalls but I dig the guy) I don't think that posting on this board is a venue for him to act as a doctor, posting here makes you a poster on a fairly outrageous board. I don't even know exactly what his credentials are. If I don't know you personally I don't take it at face value what anyone's claimed credentials are here. When Peter posts here I don't view his writing in the same way his patients view his serious professional opinion in the context of his actual role as doctor. You have to accept this relationship with any doctor and even then don't have to take his advise or opinions. He is just the same funny guy who I shared entertaining lunches with decades ago. Posting here is a place to unwind from professional identities with their serious consequences. No one is always acting in their professional capacity and posting on boards like this is not a way to receive a medical diagnosis. So I have not gotten past my own "pro-Peter) bias, but I am still defending Peter's right to use this board to say whatever he wants without the shaming that he is not being "professional". None of us are as far as I can tell, that's what makes this a cool clubhouse. Now if Richard takes the hint from what Peter said and got a check-up from the neck-up...that would not be the worst outcome for everyone's welfare as far as I am concerned. I don't need to be a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing... --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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. > > > 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. >
