--- In [email protected], Peter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Jeez, leave this board for a day and you miss a lot. I > didn't make any sort of diagnosis formal or informal > regarding Richard. I just mentioned that Richard > should consider going back on his antipsychotic > medication.
Here's what you wrote, since you appear to have forgotten part of it: "Dude, with all respect, you need to be back on your Seroquel. I kid you not. You have symptoms of a mild psychosis." How is that not a diagnosis of a "mild psychosis"? Do people have psychotic symptoms without being psychotic? And exactly how do you know he's been prescribed antipsychotic medication, let alone a specific antipsychotic medication? Are people who aren't psychotic ever prescribed antipsychotic medication? Was this a bit of a nasty comment? Yes, it > was. Should I have said it? I don't know. You know damn well you shouldn't have said it, even if you meant it, but *especially* if you were just looking for a way to put him down and didn't really mean it. Look at your wording--"with due respect" and "I kid you not." You obviously intended for your comments to be taken seriously. You mentioned a specific medication as if you knew it had been prescribed, as if you had some inside knowledge of his condition (and if you did, you'd be breaching confidentiality). The reason I > said was in reaction to his rather bizarre posts > regarding Muktananda and "Marshy." I don't know if > Richard actually has bipolar or psychotic symptoms. > His thinking at times as expressed by his posts seems > a little strange. That's all. Why you said it is utterly irrelevant. There are all kinds of nasty remarks you could have made that would not have been unethical. This one was. Your post rivals Tom Pall's racist spewings in its disgracefulness, IMHO. Your attempt to excuse yourself is even worse.
