Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Crazy Psychologists ? Or Just Abusive?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Any psychologist that says, over a period of weeks: 1) I have state sanction to declare you crazy 2) I have state sanction to commit crazy people 3) You are crazy You take these comments completely out of context, as if they were made to demonstrte some sort of power over others; as a threat or something. Nor were these comments listed as some sort of syllogism. and even if only as a joke -- and doesn't get the substantial abuse of position in those words, and crude, sick one-upmanship in that, well, is crazy, IMO. It's your projection of abuse of power. You are the one that feels threatened. There is no intent to threaten from my side at all. 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. 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. 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. 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? (Sorry if my words may/don't yet quite hit the mark, in defining and describing why those 3 points above are quite so odd -- and a bit chilling -- from a licensed psychologist.) But continue to laugh it away. It makes it all the more odd. Kevin -- the other licensed psychologist here, or Marek, a lawyer in good standing with the bar, does the above seem odd, from a professional standards point of view, to you? If you sincerely don't think so, I will reconsider why I think it is abhorant. (I reconsider most of my values and POVs regularly, so thats not a huge commitment.) To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Park yourself in front of a world of choices in alternative vehicles. Visit the Yahoo! Auto Green Center. http://autos.yahoo.com/green_center/
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Crazy Psychologists ? Or Just Abusive?
On Sep 6, 2007, at 9:36 AM, Peter wrote: but when the poster explains the intent of the post you'd think the misunderstanding would simmer down. 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. This is an old pattern here, not just plied against you. It happens all the time. The best thing to do is respond truthfully and then let it go. If others want to exercise their delusions online, that's their problem. It was very clear from the beginning (esp. given the often jovial, good-natured, tongue-in-cheek nature of your postings) that it was a joke, meant lightly. Didn't anyone ever hear the saying 'when you point a finger at someone, you have three pointing back at you'? Something we all should remember.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Crazy Psychologists ? Or Just Abusive?
On Sep 6, 2007, at 10:14 AM, Vaj wrote: If others want to exercise their delusions online, that's their problem. Sorry should've read: If others want to exercise their delusions or obsessions online, that's their problem.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Crazy Psychologists ? Or Just Abusive?
Peter, the more you try to excuse yourself, the deeper you dig the hole you're in. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Crazy Psychologists ? Or Just Abusive?
New.Morning, it didn't get me worked up because of the context in which it appeared -- an online forum -- and because of the history of the two individuals, Peter and Richard, as I've come to know them on FFL. A different configuration could easily prompt a different reply. I think you hit the nail on the head here Marek. Although I can understand the points being made here by all sides, I can't help thinking that the actual context is being ignored. It is the content of the posts themselves by Mr.Go Figure that should have his PR team of spin doctors working through the night, not a comment by a person whose comments regularly use hyperbole for comedic effect. Being offended by what people say here by taking it out of the FFL bantering context and taking it seriously as if this was a serious publication, is a choice designed to allow re-visiting favorite emotions IMO. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Marek Reavis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: New.Morning, it didn't get me worked up because of the context in which it appeared -- an online forum -- and because of the history of the two individuals, Peter and Richard, as I've come to know them on FFL. A different configuration could easily prompt a different reply. ** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter drpetersutphen@ wrote: It was a joke. Abuse of power? I could see how it could be taken this way. But it seems that Richard as well as many other got my intent. Others misunderstood it and I understand why they did. But apologize? PLEASE! Any psychologist that says, over a period of weeks: 1) I have state sanction to declare you crazy 2) I have state sanction to commit crazy people 3) You are crazy and even if only as a joke -- and doesn't get the substantial abuse of position in those words, and crude, sick one-upmanship in that, well, is crazy, IMO. (Sorry if my words may/don't yet quite hit the mark, in defining and describing why those 3 points above are quite so odd -- and a bit chilling -- from a licensed psychologist.) But continue to laugh it away. It makes it all the more odd. Kevin -- the other licensed psychologist here, or Marek, a lawyer in good standing with the bar, does the above seem odd, from a professional standards point of view, to you? If you sincerely don't think so, I will reconsider why I think it is abhorant. (I reconsider most of my values and POVs regularly, so thats not a huge commitment.)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Crazy Psychologists ? Or Just Abusive?
Judy wrote: 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 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/148391 Never heard of a psychologist prescribing medications for anyone on the Internet. In fact, I've never heard of a psychologist prescribing any prescription medications for anyone. Seriously. --to an audience of his peers that he was psychotic? An audience of his peers? The only other Ph.D. on this forum, that I know of, got his degree from Meru.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Crazy Psychologists ? Or Just Abusive?
--- Richard J. Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Judy wrote: 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 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/148391 Never heard of a psychologist prescribing medications for anyone on the Internet. In fact, I've never heard of a psychologist prescribing any prescription medications for anyone. Seriously. --to an audience of his peers that he was psychotic? An audience of his peers? The only other Ph.D. on this forum, that I know of, got his degree from Meru. I think Richard gets my post, quite seriously and understands that I was not seriously diagnosing any psychological condition of his nor recommending, because I can't, any medication that he should take. How in the world does a serious diagnoses start with the word, Dude..? I think Richard is a whack and he thinks I'm a quack. I like the symmetry. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Fussy? Opinionated? Impossible to please? Perfect. Join Yahoo!'s user panel and lay it on us. http://surveylink.yahoo.com/gmrs/yahoo_panel_invite.asp?a=7
[FairfieldLife] Re: Crazy Psychologists ? Or Just Abusive?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning no_reply@ wrote: It's your projection of abuse of power. Thats a possibility. I well reflect on that. Can you accept that, that perhaps is not the case? You are the one that feels threatened. Ok, that one I can address directly. You are incorrect Peter. I know my own feelings better than you do. And your repeated attempts to know a persons inner state and dynamics from text is naive -- an inaccurate. There is no intent to threaten from my side at all. That was not my point. But then again you are not saying it was. You are clarifying your position. Good. You and Judy appear to have a vested interest in keeping this abuse issue going The operative word is appears. What seems to be is not always what is. Clearly, in your education you must have had sufficient training in recognizing cognitive errors to understand my point. Appears really means appears to you. Which his fine as a working hypothesis if you believe it has merit for you. Do you have any alternative hypotheses? Can you conceive, accept the possibility, that your hypothesis above is incorrect? 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. Again Peter, some feedback: you continue to make hypotheses that are incorrect. I know my own feelings. You don't. This exchange, and a number of others are ample evidence of that (that you can't read peoples minds). Evidence to me that you know little about my inner state, mind, feelings, and intents. You may take that as useful feedback on your remote diagnostic skills, or not. Your choice. 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. Clearly you have not carefully read my posts, or tried to reflect on my points, or grasp the issues I raise. It has little to do with your intent. Before you go ballistic (again), simmer down, breath deep, and re-read what I actually wrote in my series of posts on this matter. Taken as a whole. Read the words that are actually on the page, don't solely read and react to your emotions to the words. 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. Do you have any other hypotheses? If not, you best would be able to explore a persecution complex or something related. To me the most important reponse to my post was Richard who reponded with the humourous, Quack. I think later he elaborated, with something like dumb fuck quack. It seemed to me, anf I may be wrong (something hard for you to say about yourself, it appears), that RW was not taking it as a joke. Can you conceive of the possibility that he didn't? Or the possibility that people can comment on some social-level oddity, perplexing cognitive dissonance, without having an agenda to demonize anyone? 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? Why don't you actually read my posts to find out. Read the actual words. Not the emotions that flare inside you, apparently, when you read them. You appear to be reacting to internal structures in your head, and heart, that have no corresponding reality in the outside world -- the world with some intersubjective commonaltiy. But I may be wrong.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Crazy Psychologists ? Or Just Abusive?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: New.Morning, it didn't get me worked up because of the context in which it appeared -- an online forum -- and because of the history of the two individuals, Peter and Richard, as I've come to know them on FFL. A different configuration could easily prompt a different reply. I think you hit the nail on the head here Marek. Curtis, That must hurt the nail. (Ouch. Mrs Nail -- how was your day, dear. Mr Nail: some f*cking bastard ran up to me and hit me on the head with a hammer. And then his f*cking friend commended him for it. Humans! what a bunch of violent morons Although I can understand the points being made here by all sides, I can't help thinking that the actual context is being ignored. I am a big fan of context. My working hypothesis, until shown to be substantively incorrect, is that there is no such thing as an absolutely bad behavior. That there is always some context in which that behavior is appropriate. If only hypothetical. (Thus my list of heinous acts, in response to edg's fine piece on social conditioning of values. Can there be a proper context for these behaviors. I don't know, its a good thought piece though). What are your thoughts on that hypothesis? You are a person I respect that would / might get that -- at least as an interesting inquiry dive. Being offended by what people say here by taking it out of the FFL bantering context and taking it seriously as if this was a serious publication, is a choice designed to allow re-visiting favorite emotions IMO. Agreed. Nice platitude. What is the relationship to this convo? Are you feeling offended etc? I'm not. So I don't see your point. Perhaps, I am guessing, you may hypothesize that I am acting in response to being offended. Alternative and multiple hypotheses are a good thing, see my adjacent post. The only feedback I can provide, if its of value to you, is a hypothesize that I am offended by Peter's posts, then that is not correct. Take that feedback for what its worth. As I have said in my posts, there is something in Peter's sequence of posts over several months -- thats perhaps the context you are missing but is all important to my point --that I find odd, perhaps unethical and disturbing -- from a social perspective. (Which a quite different from my being disturbed by them -- but word symbols and modern syntaxes have their limits.} And that I may not have been able, yet to well articulate that. I am trying to make it clearer. And that is why I usually post on FFL -- to clarify things in my own mind that seem ambiguous, odd, illogical, a cognitive error, etc. (I figured you got that point when you responded to a series of posts nice serves -- but perhaps that was not an idea in the package you were complimentary of. (And feedback is always good. And appreciated -- good or bad)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Crazy Psychologists ? Or Just Abusive?
New.Morning, it didn't get me worked up because of the context in which it appeared -- an online forum -- and because of the history of the two individuals, Peter and Richard, as I've come to know them on FFL. A different configuration could easily prompt a different reply. ** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter drpetersutphen@ wrote: It was a joke. Abuse of power? I could see how it could be taken this way. But it seems that Richard as well as many other got my intent. Others misunderstood it and I understand why they did. But apologize? PLEASE! Any psychologist that says, over a period of weeks: 1) I have state sanction to declare you crazy 2) I have state sanction to commit crazy people 3) You are crazy and even if only as a joke -- and doesn't get the substantial abuse of position in those words, and crude, sick one-upmanship in that, well, is crazy, IMO. (Sorry if my words may/don't yet quite hit the mark, in defining and describing why those 3 points above are quite so odd -- and a bit chilling -- from a licensed psychologist.) But continue to laugh it away. It makes it all the more odd. Kevin -- the other licensed psychologist here, or Marek, a lawyer in good standing with the bar, does the above seem odd, from a professional standards point of view, to you? If you sincerely don't think so, I will reconsider why I think it is abhorant. (I reconsider most of my values and POVs regularly, so thats not a huge commitment.)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Crazy Psychologists ? Or Just Abusive?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Marek Reavis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: New.Morning, it didn't get me worked up because of the context in which it appeared -- an online forum -- and because of the history of the two individuals, Peter and Richard, as I've come to know them on FFL. A different configuration could easily prompt a different reply. Marek, Thanks for your response. I am not worked up, more on the opposite side of it, icy cold appalled. But I acknowledge, I have not been able to fully articulate the sadness/chillness I feel from this. I understand Peter thinks he was joking, and its all a joke. And I understand the informality and banter of the forum. And i understand RW, his posts, and reactions to them. I will try to dig deeper as to why the RW / PS exchange is haunting to me. Perhaps its just my own demons and gulag type memories. I appreciate your perspective. I will reconsider mine. ** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter drpetersutphen@ wrote: It was a joke. Abuse of power? I could see how it could be taken this way. But it seems that Richard as well as many other got my intent. Others misunderstood it and I understand why they did. But apologize? PLEASE! Any psychologist that says, over a period of weeks: 1) I have state sanction to declare you crazy 2) I have state sanction to commit crazy people 3) You are crazy and even if only as a joke -- and doesn't get the substantial abuse of position in those words, and crude, sick one-upmanship in that, well, is crazy, IMO. (Sorry if my words may/don't yet quite hit the mark, in defining and describing why those 3 points above are quite so odd -- and a bit chilling -- from a licensed psychologist.) But continue to laugh it away. It makes it all the more odd. Kevin -- the other licensed psychologist here, or Marek, a lawyer in good standing with the bar, does the above seem odd, from a professional standards point of view, to you? If you sincerely don't think so, I will reconsider why I think it is abhorant. (I reconsider most of my values and POVs regularly, so thats not a huge commitment.)
