--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > "But you're behaving like a little kid screaming that his mommy's > a mean old witch because she scolded him for stealing > a cookie." > > It may be your self-perception that you are in a position to scold > from a "Mommy" perspective that causes some trouble here Judy.
Uh, Curtis, look again. It was Edg's perspective I was characterizing, not my own. I had addressed him as his peer, but he *reacted* as if I were his mother. He invited criticism from the members of the group, and when he got it from me, he threw a temper tantrum (and is still throwing it many days later). Your > perspective on Pete's comments added to the interesting discussion up > to the point that you tried to sell your POV as a universal ethical > principle that you could tell that Pete had violated concerning his > own profession. Since you are not in this profession you are just > speculating about how people should conduct themselves while on a > chat board. You are taking your own POV from outside the > profession too seriously. Tell you what, if you can find a reputable psychologist (not from this forum, nor anyone who knows Peter) who disagrees with me, I'll give it another think. But a moment's reflection should suffice to recognize that you don't have to be *in* a profession to know when a professional has behaved unethically. It's a matter of common sense, not some exalted, arcane code only a professional could comprehend. I also note that you haven't addressed any of my reasoning, including the long post I left responding to your specific concerns in an earlier post. If you could make a case that my reasoning isn't on target on the merits, there'd be a basis for me to take you seriously. But you haven't done that; you're attempting a grand meta-putdown without having done the careful thinking necessary to give it a solid foundation. That's just lazy (and it's wrong in any case). > Peter's abusive behavior is right here and now, > > where there's at least some potential for me to > > get him to think about what he did, and possibly > > to resist the temptation to do the same thing in > > some other context in which he might well cause > > serious harm. > > So you weren't just taking a shot at a person who you don't like > much on this board? Nope. Even if we were best pals, I'd have called him out about this. Maybe you're willing to criticize only those whom you don't like, but don't assume that applies to everyone else as well. In any case, my main, if not my only, complaint about Peter all along has been his shaky ethical sense. This is just a particularly egregious instance. > You have made this whole outrage up as an excuse to take a > shot at Pete. Nope, sorry. It would be an outrage no matter who the psychologist was. > Other posters who know you both well recognize what is going on > here just as clearly as we saw the intent of the original exchange. In other words, seriously distorted by the fact that you don't like *me*. Man, if I had said this to you, you'd be dumping all over me for basing my argument on what I imagined your motivations to be instead of dealing with your reasoning. Dig yourself, dude. (I think I'm probably just over my posting limit, so if you want to continue this, I'll get back to you on the weekend.)
