> Stephen Black: > > When Jim Guinee said this: > > > In order to properly challenge, one must have enough knowledge of the > > issues in the first place. Otherwise a lot of time is wasted on > > ignorance"... > > I wasn't sure whether he was calling me ignorant or not, but I thought it > likely, given Jim's penchant for the polarizing opinion.
I would say in this instance you have demonstrated an unusual amount of ignorance, because despite our differences I consider you extremely informed. There are a number of problems that have arisen from the moment you provided this study on Kubler-Ross. Part of the problem is that you seem to think I'm religiously devoted to Kubler-Ross' theory, when I have already explained that error. You also tried to throw this new-fangled vulture-like trauma counseling in with the kind of grief therapy that comprises what most therapists do. Not to mention long ago we cast much doubt on the vultures, and I distinctly remember being part of the dissension crowd. The biggest error you have made is that you seem to be using this study as a smarmy attack on therapists, particularly with your comment about grief counselors changing their approach based on this study...a study you admit isn't good. Sigh You know what the biggest problem with the study is...pay attention. It removed the kind of data we could collect from people who have experienced a) a tragic loss and/or b) complicated bereavement. Guess who usually comes to therapy after a profound loss (death)? NOT THE KIND OF PEOPLE IN THE STUDY So again, why cajole therapists when your beloved study doesn't even shed light on who the therapists are going to be treating? In the end, this isn't about Kubler-Ross, so I would appreciate you not putting words into my mouth. I'm a busy man...I gotta start finding a new religion because someone has scientific evidence of Jesus' tomb!!! Jim G --- To make changes to your subscription go to: http://acsun.frostburg.edu/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=tips&text_mode=0&lang=english
