Curtis, Your answer clearly upset Maria.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/09/01/sports/02sharapova.1.600.jpg She just lost at US Open. Reining champion losing in second round. And its all your fault. (And no, she is not interested in a consolation date. I just talked to her, sobbing, she is so pissed at you!) --- In [email protected], "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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 [email protected], new.morning <no_reply@> 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. > > > > > > 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. > > >
