Peter, the more you try to excuse yourself, the deeper you dig the hole you're in.
--- In [email protected], Peter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: <snip> > You and Judy appear to > have a vested interest in keeping this "abuse" issue > going because when I attempt to place my comments to > Richard in the context of my intent both of you ignore > it and go back to your silly "outrage." If neither of us had spoken up, Peter, you would have had no occasion to place your comments to Richard in the context of your intent. Anyone who had misunderstood your intent would still be under the impression that you had delivered a professional clinical opinion that Richard was psychotic. *That* is the "outrage." In that sense, we've *saved you from yourself*. You should be thanking us rather than insulting us. We aren't "ignoring" your explanations of your intent, we're pointing out that your intent only made it worse. I do > understand how my comments to Richard could be > misconstrued, but when the poster explains the intent > of the post you'd think the misunderstanding would > simmer down. We understood *from the beginning* that you were simply engaging in a putdown. There's no misunderstanding on our part and never has been. That's a red herring. What we're objecting to is that you appeared to *want* to be misunderstood. Would you have gone back to make your intent clear if we hadn't spoken up? The fact that it doesn't means, to me, > that both of you want to demonize me and this is a > justification to continue this position. Not all criticism constitutes "demonization." You aren't a demon, you're just a fallible human being who has made a serious mistake, but you don't seem to want to acknowledge that fact. If you had acknowledged it right away, it would have ended there. (What does it say about your image of yourself that having a mistake pointed out makes you feel "demonized"?) That you're standing on your head to *avoid* acknowledging the mistake, and being extraordinarily intellectually dishonest in your excuses, trying to demonize those who pointed out the mistake, just adds to the impression of your lack of integrity. To me the > most important reponse to my post was Richard who > reponded with the humourous, "Quack". A great pun and > appopriate reponse in the informal, non-professional > atmosphere of FFL. So if Richard doesn't feel "abused" > by my "power" what does it matter to you? Speaking of intellectual dishonesty: By the time Richard left that comment, he had already seen much of the discussion and knew for sure that you were just trying to insult him. How would he have felt if there had *been* no discussion, if your initial comment were all he had seen? Even if it didn't shake his own confidence in his sanity, how would he have felt knowing a practicing clinical psychologist had announced--to all appearances, quite seriously--to an audience of his peers that he was psychotic? If Richard wouldn't have cared (which he probably wouldn't have), if no damage at all had been done, it wouldn't have made Peter's comment any less unethical. It would just mean that Peter was *lucky* his lack of ethics didn't cause any harm.
