Re: Shrinks and us

[Guest guest]

> The scope of what psychiatrists may do is defined by medical

> associations. The scope of what psychologists, social workers,

> counselors, etc., may do is usually defined by state licensing

boards,

> and these definitions vary greatly state to state. In some states

you

> can be a psychotherapist without licensing. Actually there are many

> other types of unlicensed professions that infringe to some extent

on

> psychotherapy, such as " lifestyle consultant " (encompassing a

variety

> of practices, whose number is limited by your imagination) or

> " personal coach. " You can be a hypnotist in many places without

> licensing. You can be a neurolinguistic programming practitioner

> without licensing. The U.S. truly is the land of the free.

>

> What special knowledge do you have that qualifies you to make

> statements about the status of psychotherapy in the United States?

(Not " special " maybe but likely better than yours about why Swiss ppl

keep guns, and more politely expressed). I've read about it. What you

say above appears to agree with what I have been saying all along:

there is no *legal* requirement to be a doctor to be a psychoanalyst

in the US, though many professional psychoanalytic associations may

require it. So why the churlishness?

[Guest guest]

>

> **************************************************

> I am in the middle of a response I set aside before leaving for

work, but I

> do want to respond quickly to this. On _this_ side of the pond,

although it

> may vary somewhat by state law, it was psychiatrists who practiced

> psychoanalysis.

> **************************************************

> What does the angicism " on this side of the pond " when one is known

> to be writing from the U.S. mean?

Ok, I accept that. My apologies for not picking up on that.

> And if [requirements to be an MD] _were_ imposed by the

psychoanalytic institutions and

> the state (the vast majority of 48 or 50 of them) required

certification

> by the psychoanalytic institutions, is that particularly relevant to

>where

> this discussion started out?

Yep it would be - but the Dallas Psychoanalytic Institute puts it at

its website http://www.dalpsa.org/papers/whois.htm:

" Anyone, regardless of whether they have had any training or not, let

alone formal psychoanalytic training,

can refer to themselves as a psychotherapist or psychoanalyst. "

Most will of course be trained by organizations credited by the

American Psychoanalytic Association, who do make restrictions. As an

aside, it no appears tht there are no less than 3 organizations all

with nearly identical names and identical acronyms: American

Psychoanalytic Association, American Psychiatric Association, and

American Psychological Association. I find it amazing that in the

most litigous nation on earth they dont seem to mind sharing the

initials APA.

PW: " I presume that you are referring to Ritalian/Adderal for

ADD/ADHD. While it may be less likely to be a problem in other

cultures, that doesnt mean it *cant* exist.

If a medical fad removed thousands of appendices unnecessarily say,

this fact does not mean that appendicitis does not exist. "

KR: No, it doesn't. But removing appendices is often very

>unnecessary.

> I'm not arguing " whether there are appendices. " I'm arguing

>_treating_ " normalness. "

PW: You seem to have missed the point. APPENDICITIS exists, not just

appendices. Even if the ratio of misdiagnosed:real cases of ADD were

100:1, ADD itself may neverthless exist. Appendectomy of an infected

appendix isnt the product of intolerance toward an individualistic

organ; it's an intervention against a genuine problem. At one time

surgeons were probably over-enthusiastic and did the operation

unnecessarily, some might still do but sometimes it's needed. Exactly

the same may be true for Ritalin treatment, and I think it probably

is.

> As I've commented on elsewhere, Dean Edell, a very popular radio

>doctor,

> said he was a _very_ talkative child, talking all the time. If he

>was put in

>

> a position as a small child to either remain silent where his

> " compulsive talking " would become self-evident, would being treated

>for the " disease " of being a four-year-old relentless chatterbox,

>would _anyone_ be better off?

This is a very common tactic that psychiatry opponents such as

yourself use - the taking of an individual characteristic of a

disorder, taking it in isolation, and portraying it in a facile manner

(with an optional comparison to a public figure) to try to discredit

the whole dx. Why, I have an Oriental friend with a yellow skin.

Just goes to prove that " jaundice " is a total crock, doesnt it?

ADD is not about mere talkativeness, and in any one characteristic

there is the significance of *degree*, development and also context.

The fact that psychiatric dxes are made on matters of degree, and

context is another stick used to beat it, despite the fact that they

are also used with regard to physical disorders too. " High Blood

Pressure " is a matter of degree, and also context.

I agree that cultural factors are important and also there are good

signs that modern education is making unrealistic demands of children,

boys in particular, which may not only make many children appear ADD

who would not be and in fact may actually be creating the disorder,

i.e. by expecting long periods of sedentary and quiet study with

little time for recess. Cultural factors also impinge on children's

physical health too. The same things contribute to child obesity, but

that does not mean that other factors may not be involved, that an

individual child has a predisposition or is comfort eating as a result

of abuse. Psychological problems are *multi-factorial*, but everyone

just wants to push their own perspective without accepting the big

picture.

> I would ask you, how often are glossy reprints of brain scans used

>to

> prove that what someone is doing that others don't want them to is

> a disease? Do you doubt for a second that a similar finding for

> anything in the DSM wouldn't be presented as proof?

Again, you keep saying " doing things that others dont want them to

do " , as if this were the sole criterion for dxing a disorder, which it

is not. frequently it is because the poor person's life is going to

total ratshit, and their death either accudentally or deliberately.

Again, it is the skeptics like yourself who are *demanding* this

evidence! It's given you, and *then* you start saying it's a load of

hooey! Again I ask you, what is the evidence that *would* convince

you that a psychological disorder exists? I am reminded of

Shermer being asked by a Holocaust denier for " any proof " of the

Holocaust. Shermer asked him what he would consider proof - and didnt

get an answer. I am also reminded of the apparently true case of the

lawyer who asked a pathologist how he knew that a patient was dead.

" Because I had his brain in a flask in my desk " . " And you were sure

he was already dead at that time? " " Well I guess he could be alive

and well and practising law somewhere. "

I am sure there are many DSM dxes that dont show up on brain scans and

quite likely by any other physiological measurement. When talking

about *these* dxes, no doubt you'd be waving that fact in my face. And

then, lo and behold, as soon as someone finds anything, then all of a

sudden the fact these findings are made has suddenly become

at best irrelevant and at worst suspicious!

> If the social

> climate should change dramatically (_very_ dramatically<G>) and

> cab driving be something that is the object of total scorn, don't

>you

> think that those differences would be seen as proof of disease in

> those who insisted on continuing to drive taxis? If not, then you

> are rather naive.

But Ken, if taxi driving actually WAS condemned by a society,

couldnt it actually be that those who kept doing it really *could*

have a psychological disorder? The vast majority of the present ones

would stop and do something else, so what's different about those who

would carry on with it? Note in particular that in such a sociaty the

profession of " taxi driving " would not actually exist in the sense we

know it now - try as they might, they could never do exactly what they

do now in any case - what they actually did would be a travesty. Note

also I say disorder, not disease. Why the hell should you keep doing

something that keeps getting you into all kinds of shit for no good

reason unless you have a problem? Also, I'll bet that any common

differences these folks might have in brain physiology from compliant

former taxi drivers would *not* be the same as the difference between

present socially accepted taxi drivers and other ppl; it would be

totally different.

> No evidence can be found to convince anyone who believes in the

> biblical creation myth that it isn't true. For those people, the

Genesis

> account can not be scientifically falsified.

Atually, *sometimes* they do change their mind. But you have my

point. Unless there is something that *would* convince you if it is

provided, your own view is comparable to theirs.

>

> So is the core of human behavior different from socially accepted

norms

> the result of brain disease? Did the creators of Original Sin have

it

> right? That God made us all wrong and we must look to outside

> authority in a desperate attemt to deal with our wrongness?

Where he heck did all this come from? I am by no means a

bioreductioninst with regard to psychological *disorders*, but in any

case, biological theories of psychological disorder *dont say

*everybody* has these problems; just that some do. Also all but the

severely impaired, who may harm themselves or others, are free to make

their own choices as to how to respond to their problems. Children

may have their carers make choices for them, just as they do on every

other aspect of their welfare.

> One thing that science demands is a precise definition of terms.

First,

> you would need to say what you mean by " mental illness. " What Szasz

> took issue with was the defining of socially unacceptable behavior

>as

> brain disease.

Well, we can be pretty well as precise as one can be by what one means

by " physical illness " . This perhaps, is where we ought to have come

in. Again to use the term psychological disorder rather than mental

illness, it rests upon questions of impairment, distress,

and (not entirely) statistical abnormality. *One* of the skills that

a healthy individual has *is* compliance with important community

values and also an ability to care for themselves. Now, when people

break community values in bizarre, nonsensical fashion we can lock

them up, and when they carent care well for themselves we can let them

suffer and die, but Ken I *dont* see that as the humanitarian option.

P.

[Guest guest]

>

> **************************************************

> I am in the middle of a response I set aside before leaving for

work, but I

> do want to respond quickly to this. On _this_ side of the pond,

although it

> may vary somewhat by state law, it was psychiatrists who practiced

> psychoanalysis.

> **************************************************

> What does the angicism " on this side of the pond " when one is known

> to be writing from the U.S. mean?

Ok, I accept that. My apologies for not picking up on that.

> And if [requirements to be an MD] _were_ imposed by the

psychoanalytic institutions and

> the state (the vast majority of 48 or 50 of them) required

certification

> by the psychoanalytic institutions, is that particularly relevant to

>where

> this discussion started out?

Yep it would be - but the Dallas Psychoanalytic Institute puts it at

its website http://www.dalpsa.org/papers/whois.htm:

" Anyone, regardless of whether they have had any training or not, let

alone formal psychoanalytic training,

can refer to themselves as a psychotherapist or psychoanalyst. "

Most will of course be trained by organizations credited by the

American Psychoanalytic Association, who do make restrictions. As an

aside, it no appears tht there are no less than 3 organizations all

with nearly identical names and identical acronyms: American

Psychoanalytic Association, American Psychiatric Association, and

American Psychological Association. I find it amazing that in the

most litigous nation on earth they dont seem to mind sharing the

initials APA.

PW: " I presume that you are referring to Ritalian/Adderal for

ADD/ADHD. While it may be less likely to be a problem in other

cultures, that doesnt mean it *cant* exist.

If a medical fad removed thousands of appendices unnecessarily say,

this fact does not mean that appendicitis does not exist. "

KR: No, it doesn't. But removing appendices is often very

>unnecessary.

> I'm not arguing " whether there are appendices. " I'm arguing

>_treating_ " normalness. "

PW: You seem to have missed the point. APPENDICITIS exists, not just

appendices. Even if the ratio of misdiagnosed:real cases of ADD were

100:1, ADD itself may neverthless exist. Appendectomy of an infected

appendix isnt the product of intolerance toward an individualistic

organ; it's an intervention against a genuine problem. At one time

surgeons were probably over-enthusiastic and did the operation

unnecessarily, some might still do but sometimes it's needed. Exactly

the same may be true for Ritalin treatment, and I think it probably

is.

> As I've commented on elsewhere, Dean Edell, a very popular radio

>doctor,

> said he was a _very_ talkative child, talking all the time. If he

>was put in

>

> a position as a small child to either remain silent where his

> " compulsive talking " would become self-evident, would being treated

>for the " disease " of being a four-year-old relentless chatterbox,

>would _anyone_ be better off?

This is a very common tactic that psychiatry opponents such as

yourself use - the taking of an individual characteristic of a

disorder, taking it in isolation, and portraying it in a facile manner

(with an optional comparison to a public figure) to try to discredit

the whole dx. Why, I have an Oriental friend with a yellow skin.

Just goes to prove that " jaundice " is a total crock, doesnt it?

ADD is not about mere talkativeness, and in any one characteristic

there is the significance of *degree*, development and also context.

The fact that psychiatric dxes are made on matters of degree, and

context is another stick used to beat it, despite the fact that they

are also used with regard to physical disorders too. " High Blood

Pressure " is a matter of degree, and also context.

I agree that cultural factors are important and also there are good

signs that modern education is making unrealistic demands of children,

boys in particular, which may not only make many children appear ADD

who would not be and in fact may actually be creating the disorder,

i.e. by expecting long periods of sedentary and quiet study with

little time for recess. Cultural factors also impinge on children's

physical health too. The same things contribute to child obesity, but

that does not mean that other factors may not be involved, that an

individual child has a predisposition or is comfort eating as a result

of abuse. Psychological problems are *multi-factorial*, but everyone

just wants to push their own perspective without accepting the big

picture.

> I would ask you, how often are glossy reprints of brain scans used

>to

> prove that what someone is doing that others don't want them to is

> a disease? Do you doubt for a second that a similar finding for

> anything in the DSM wouldn't be presented as proof?

Again, you keep saying " doing things that others dont want them to

do " , as if this were the sole criterion for dxing a disorder, which it

is not. frequently it is because the poor person's life is going to

total ratshit, and their death either accudentally or deliberately.

Again, it is the skeptics like yourself who are *demanding* this

evidence! It's given you, and *then* you start saying it's a load of

hooey! Again I ask you, what is the evidence that *would* convince

you that a psychological disorder exists? I am reminded of

Shermer being asked by a Holocaust denier for " any proof " of the

Holocaust. Shermer asked him what he would consider proof - and didnt

get an answer. I am also reminded of the apparently true case of the

lawyer who asked a pathologist how he knew that a patient was dead.

" Because I had his brain in a flask in my desk " . " And you were sure

he was already dead at that time? " " Well I guess he could be alive

and well and practising law somewhere. "

I am sure there are many DSM dxes that dont show up on brain scans and

quite likely by any other physiological measurement. When talking

about *these* dxes, no doubt you'd be waving that fact in my face. And

then, lo and behold, as soon as someone finds anything, then all of a

sudden the fact these findings are made has suddenly become

at best irrelevant and at worst suspicious!

> If the social

> climate should change dramatically (_very_ dramatically<G>) and

> cab driving be something that is the object of total scorn, don't

>you

> think that those differences would be seen as proof of disease in

> those who insisted on continuing to drive taxis? If not, then you

> are rather naive.

But Ken, if taxi driving actually WAS condemned by a society,

couldnt it actually be that those who kept doing it really *could*

have a psychological disorder? The vast majority of the present ones

would stop and do something else, so what's different about those who

would carry on with it? Note in particular that in such a sociaty the

profession of " taxi driving " would not actually exist in the sense we

know it now - try as they might, they could never do exactly what they

do now in any case - what they actually did would be a travesty. Note

also I say disorder, not disease. Why the hell should you keep doing

something that keeps getting you into all kinds of shit for no good

reason unless you have a problem? Also, I'll bet that any common

differences these folks might have in brain physiology from compliant

former taxi drivers would *not* be the same as the difference between

present socially accepted taxi drivers and other ppl; it would be

totally different.

> No evidence can be found to convince anyone who believes in the

> biblical creation myth that it isn't true. For those people, the

Genesis

> account can not be scientifically falsified.

Atually, *sometimes* they do change their mind. But you have my

point. Unless there is something that *would* convince you if it is

provided, your own view is comparable to theirs.

>

> So is the core of human behavior different from socially accepted

norms

> the result of brain disease? Did the creators of Original Sin have

it

> right? That God made us all wrong and we must look to outside

> authority in a desperate attemt to deal with our wrongness?

Where he heck did all this come from? I am by no means a

bioreductioninst with regard to psychological *disorders*, but in any

case, biological theories of psychological disorder *dont say

*everybody* has these problems; just that some do. Also all but the

severely impaired, who may harm themselves or others, are free to make

their own choices as to how to respond to their problems. Children

may have their carers make choices for them, just as they do on every

other aspect of their welfare.

> One thing that science demands is a precise definition of terms.

First,

> you would need to say what you mean by " mental illness. " What Szasz

> took issue with was the defining of socially unacceptable behavior

>as

> brain disease.

Well, we can be pretty well as precise as one can be by what one means

by " physical illness " . This perhaps, is where we ought to have come

in. Again to use the term psychological disorder rather than mental

illness, it rests upon questions of impairment, distress,

and (not entirely) statistical abnormality. *One* of the skills that

a healthy individual has *is* compliance with important community

values and also an ability to care for themselves. Now, when people

break community values in bizarre, nonsensical fashion we can lock

them up, and when they carent care well for themselves we can let them

suffer and die, but Ken I *dont* see that as the humanitarian option.

P.

[Guest guest]

>

> **************************************************

> I am in the middle of a response I set aside before leaving for

work, but I

> do want to respond quickly to this. On _this_ side of the pond,

although it

> may vary somewhat by state law, it was psychiatrists who practiced

> psychoanalysis.

> **************************************************

> What does the angicism " on this side of the pond " when one is known

> to be writing from the U.S. mean?

Ok, I accept that. My apologies for not picking up on that.

> And if [requirements to be an MD] _were_ imposed by the

psychoanalytic institutions and

> the state (the vast majority of 48 or 50 of them) required

certification

> by the psychoanalytic institutions, is that particularly relevant to

>where

> this discussion started out?

Yep it would be - but the Dallas Psychoanalytic Institute puts it at

its website http://www.dalpsa.org/papers/whois.htm:

" Anyone, regardless of whether they have had any training or not, let

alone formal psychoanalytic training,

can refer to themselves as a psychotherapist or psychoanalyst. "

Most will of course be trained by organizations credited by the

American Psychoanalytic Association, who do make restrictions. As an

aside, it no appears tht there are no less than 3 organizations all

with nearly identical names and identical acronyms: American

Psychoanalytic Association, American Psychiatric Association, and

American Psychological Association. I find it amazing that in the

most litigous nation on earth they dont seem to mind sharing the

initials APA.

PW: " I presume that you are referring to Ritalian/Adderal for

ADD/ADHD. While it may be less likely to be a problem in other

cultures, that doesnt mean it *cant* exist.

If a medical fad removed thousands of appendices unnecessarily say,

this fact does not mean that appendicitis does not exist. "

KR: No, it doesn't. But removing appendices is often very

>unnecessary.

> I'm not arguing " whether there are appendices. " I'm arguing

>_treating_ " normalness. "

PW: You seem to have missed the point. APPENDICITIS exists, not just

appendices. Even if the ratio of misdiagnosed:real cases of ADD were

100:1, ADD itself may neverthless exist. Appendectomy of an infected

appendix isnt the product of intolerance toward an individualistic

organ; it's an intervention against a genuine problem. At one time

surgeons were probably over-enthusiastic and did the operation

unnecessarily, some might still do but sometimes it's needed. Exactly

the same may be true for Ritalin treatment, and I think it probably

is.

> As I've commented on elsewhere, Dean Edell, a very popular radio

>doctor,

> said he was a _very_ talkative child, talking all the time. If he

>was put in

>

> a position as a small child to either remain silent where his

> " compulsive talking " would become self-evident, would being treated

>for the " disease " of being a four-year-old relentless chatterbox,

>would _anyone_ be better off?

This is a very common tactic that psychiatry opponents such as

yourself use - the taking of an individual characteristic of a

disorder, taking it in isolation, and portraying it in a facile manner

(with an optional comparison to a public figure) to try to discredit

the whole dx. Why, I have an Oriental friend with a yellow skin.

Just goes to prove that " jaundice " is a total crock, doesnt it?

ADD is not about mere talkativeness, and in any one characteristic

there is the significance of *degree*, development and also context.

The fact that psychiatric dxes are made on matters of degree, and

context is another stick used to beat it, despite the fact that they

are also used with regard to physical disorders too. " High Blood

Pressure " is a matter of degree, and also context.

I agree that cultural factors are important and also there are good

signs that modern education is making unrealistic demands of children,

boys in particular, which may not only make many children appear ADD

who would not be and in fact may actually be creating the disorder,

i.e. by expecting long periods of sedentary and quiet study with

little time for recess. Cultural factors also impinge on children's

physical health too. The same things contribute to child obesity, but

that does not mean that other factors may not be involved, that an

individual child has a predisposition or is comfort eating as a result

of abuse. Psychological problems are *multi-factorial*, but everyone

just wants to push their own perspective without accepting the big

picture.

> I would ask you, how often are glossy reprints of brain scans used

>to

> prove that what someone is doing that others don't want them to is

> a disease? Do you doubt for a second that a similar finding for

> anything in the DSM wouldn't be presented as proof?

Again, you keep saying " doing things that others dont want them to

do " , as if this were the sole criterion for dxing a disorder, which it

is not. frequently it is because the poor person's life is going to

total ratshit, and their death either accudentally or deliberately.

Again, it is the skeptics like yourself who are *demanding* this

evidence! It's given you, and *then* you start saying it's a load of

hooey! Again I ask you, what is the evidence that *would* convince

you that a psychological disorder exists? I am reminded of

Shermer being asked by a Holocaust denier for " any proof " of the

Holocaust. Shermer asked him what he would consider proof - and didnt

get an answer. I am also reminded of the apparently true case of the

lawyer who asked a pathologist how he knew that a patient was dead.

" Because I had his brain in a flask in my desk " . " And you were sure

he was already dead at that time? " " Well I guess he could be alive

and well and practising law somewhere. "

I am sure there are many DSM dxes that dont show up on brain scans and

quite likely by any other physiological measurement. When talking

about *these* dxes, no doubt you'd be waving that fact in my face. And

then, lo and behold, as soon as someone finds anything, then all of a

sudden the fact these findings are made has suddenly become

at best irrelevant and at worst suspicious!

> If the social

> climate should change dramatically (_very_ dramatically<G>) and

> cab driving be something that is the object of total scorn, don't

>you

> think that those differences would be seen as proof of disease in

> those who insisted on continuing to drive taxis? If not, then you

> are rather naive.

But Ken, if taxi driving actually WAS condemned by a society,

couldnt it actually be that those who kept doing it really *could*

have a psychological disorder? The vast majority of the present ones

would stop and do something else, so what's different about those who

would carry on with it? Note in particular that in such a sociaty the

profession of " taxi driving " would not actually exist in the sense we

know it now - try as they might, they could never do exactly what they

do now in any case - what they actually did would be a travesty. Note

also I say disorder, not disease. Why the hell should you keep doing

something that keeps getting you into all kinds of shit for no good

reason unless you have a problem? Also, I'll bet that any common

differences these folks might have in brain physiology from compliant

former taxi drivers would *not* be the same as the difference between

present socially accepted taxi drivers and other ppl; it would be

totally different.

> No evidence can be found to convince anyone who believes in the

> biblical creation myth that it isn't true. For those people, the

Genesis

> account can not be scientifically falsified.

Atually, *sometimes* they do change their mind. But you have my

point. Unless there is something that *would* convince you if it is

provided, your own view is comparable to theirs.

>

> So is the core of human behavior different from socially accepted

norms

> the result of brain disease? Did the creators of Original Sin have

it

> right? That God made us all wrong and we must look to outside

> authority in a desperate attemt to deal with our wrongness?

Where he heck did all this come from? I am by no means a

bioreductioninst with regard to psychological *disorders*, but in any

case, biological theories of psychological disorder *dont say

*everybody* has these problems; just that some do. Also all but the

severely impaired, who may harm themselves or others, are free to make

their own choices as to how to respond to their problems. Children

may have their carers make choices for them, just as they do on every

other aspect of their welfare.

> One thing that science demands is a precise definition of terms.

First,

> you would need to say what you mean by " mental illness. " What Szasz

> took issue with was the defining of socially unacceptable behavior

>as

> brain disease.

Well, we can be pretty well as precise as one can be by what one means

by " physical illness " . This perhaps, is where we ought to have come

in. Again to use the term psychological disorder rather than mental

illness, it rests upon questions of impairment, distress,

and (not entirely) statistical abnormality. *One* of the skills that

a healthy individual has *is* compliance with important community

values and also an ability to care for themselves. Now, when people

break community values in bizarre, nonsensical fashion we can lock

them up, and when they carent care well for themselves we can let them

suffer and die, but Ken I *dont* see that as the humanitarian option.

P.

[Guest guest]

> Pete doesn't have much at all in the category of special knowledge

> about anything in the U.S.

Really? Well I can put it on a map of the world, which appears to

defeat a lot of American high school leavers. God alone knows how many

know where Britain is. But seriously, Stanton Peele commented that he

was amazed at the extent of my knowledge of the addiction treatment

scene in the US. I've also had an article published in the official

newsletter of the Addictions Division of the American Psychological

Association.

> What he does have is an intense

>prejudice

> against us as people in general. This shows time and time again and

> has for the more than two years I have been reading his posts.

There are aspects of American politics and culture I dislike Tommy,

as there is no doubt much that you dnt like abut ours and I have

apologized for some prejudicial attitudes have shown in the past.

I also reiterate that I have never made personal antagonsitic

comments to you, despite you heaping them upon me by the truckload, as

you do on this occasion. Anyanti=-american prejudice of mine has got

NOTHING to do with this debate about psychiatry. I'd say exactly

the same thing to a group of Brits, and f2f thats exactly what I

do. Fwiw, I'm trying to defend AMERICAN psychiatry here as well as

Brit. Youre just slinging mud here.

> Pete

> is getting desparate here with the mental illness issue. It's almost

> as if it is his religion and someone has made a good argument

>against it.

No Tommy, I'm just not going to roll over to the local anti-psychiatry

religion that appears to have become established here. Given the level

of personal abuse you keep heaping on me, and also a previous pledge

not to debate this with me in future, I suggest you are the one who is

acxting like an outraged zealot. As a defender of the right to be

socially abnormal and opponent of established religion you ought to

support my right to express my views.

You said " dream on " to me when I defended psychiatry. Psychiatry

exists in almost the same form in every Industrialied nation on earth.

It treats millions of patients worldwide. It is as respectable a

branch of medicine as Obstetrics, yet you would abolish it. There

happens to be a large number of psychiatry skeptics on this list, and

the only other vocal supporter was succesfully hounded off it, but who

exactly is the " dreamer " here Tommy when it comes to the overall

consensus and the likely future of Psychiatry?

[Guest guest]

> Pete doesn't have much at all in the category of special knowledge

> about anything in the U.S.

Really? Well I can put it on a map of the world, which appears to

defeat a lot of American high school leavers. God alone knows how many

know where Britain is. But seriously, Stanton Peele commented that he

was amazed at the extent of my knowledge of the addiction treatment

scene in the US. I've also had an article published in the official

newsletter of the Addictions Division of the American Psychological

Association.

> What he does have is an intense

>prejudice

> against us as people in general. This shows time and time again and

> has for the more than two years I have been reading his posts.

There are aspects of American politics and culture I dislike Tommy,

as there is no doubt much that you dnt like abut ours and I have

apologized for some prejudicial attitudes have shown in the past.

I also reiterate that I have never made personal antagonsitic

comments to you, despite you heaping them upon me by the truckload, as

you do on this occasion. Anyanti=-american prejudice of mine has got

NOTHING to do with this debate about psychiatry. I'd say exactly

the same thing to a group of Brits, and f2f thats exactly what I

do. Fwiw, I'm trying to defend AMERICAN psychiatry here as well as

Brit. Youre just slinging mud here.

> Pete

> is getting desparate here with the mental illness issue. It's almost

> as if it is his religion and someone has made a good argument

>against it.

No Tommy, I'm just not going to roll over to the local anti-psychiatry

religion that appears to have become established here. Given the level

of personal abuse you keep heaping on me, and also a previous pledge

not to debate this with me in future, I suggest you are the one who is

acxting like an outraged zealot. As a defender of the right to be

socially abnormal and opponent of established religion you ought to

support my right to express my views.

You said " dream on " to me when I defended psychiatry. Psychiatry

exists in almost the same form in every Industrialied nation on earth.

It treats millions of patients worldwide. It is as respectable a

branch of medicine as Obstetrics, yet you would abolish it. There

happens to be a large number of psychiatry skeptics on this list, and

the only other vocal supporter was succesfully hounded off it, but who

exactly is the " dreamer " here Tommy when it comes to the overall

consensus and the likely future of Psychiatry?

[Guest guest]

> Pete doesn't have much at all in the category of special knowledge

> about anything in the U.S.

Really? Well I can put it on a map of the world, which appears to

defeat a lot of American high school leavers. God alone knows how many

know where Britain is. But seriously, Stanton Peele commented that he

was amazed at the extent of my knowledge of the addiction treatment

scene in the US. I've also had an article published in the official

newsletter of the Addictions Division of the American Psychological

Association.

> What he does have is an intense

>prejudice

> against us as people in general. This shows time and time again and

> has for the more than two years I have been reading his posts.

There are aspects of American politics and culture I dislike Tommy,

as there is no doubt much that you dnt like abut ours and I have

apologized for some prejudicial attitudes have shown in the past.

I also reiterate that I have never made personal antagonsitic

comments to you, despite you heaping them upon me by the truckload, as

you do on this occasion. Anyanti=-american prejudice of mine has got

NOTHING to do with this debate about psychiatry. I'd say exactly

the same thing to a group of Brits, and f2f thats exactly what I

do. Fwiw, I'm trying to defend AMERICAN psychiatry here as well as

Brit. Youre just slinging mud here.

> Pete

> is getting desparate here with the mental illness issue. It's almost

> as if it is his religion and someone has made a good argument

>against it.

No Tommy, I'm just not going to roll over to the local anti-psychiatry

religion that appears to have become established here. Given the level

of personal abuse you keep heaping on me, and also a previous pledge

not to debate this with me in future, I suggest you are the one who is

acxting like an outraged zealot. As a defender of the right to be

socially abnormal and opponent of established religion you ought to

support my right to express my views.

You said " dream on " to me when I defended psychiatry. Psychiatry

exists in almost the same form in every Industrialied nation on earth.

It treats millions of patients worldwide. It is as respectable a

branch of medicine as Obstetrics, yet you would abolish it. There

happens to be a large number of psychiatry skeptics on this list, and

the only other vocal supporter was succesfully hounded off it, but who

exactly is the " dreamer " here Tommy when it comes to the overall

consensus and the likely future of Psychiatry?

[Guest guest]

First anti-psychiatry

> folks say there is no brain abnormality, then when you show them

some,

> they say there's no such thing as being normal!

Hope you are not including me in that " them " , Pete. As I have said

before, but you obviously cannot grasp, when you show me brain

abnormality that is exactly what you show me--brain abnormality. This

as I have said before, and as Szasz has said before, strengthens the

argument against your position. Show me some mind abnormalities,

Pete. Show me a mind, Pete.

[Guest guest]

First anti-psychiatry

> folks say there is no brain abnormality, then when you show them

some,

> they say there's no such thing as being normal!

Hope you are not including me in that " them " , Pete. As I have said

before, but you obviously cannot grasp, when you show me brain

abnormality that is exactly what you show me--brain abnormality. This

as I have said before, and as Szasz has said before, strengthens the

argument against your position. Show me some mind abnormalities,

Pete. Show me a mind, Pete.

[Guest guest]

First anti-psychiatry

> folks say there is no brain abnormality, then when you show them

some,

> they say there's no such thing as being normal!

Hope you are not including me in that " them " , Pete. As I have said

before, but you obviously cannot grasp, when you show me brain

abnormality that is exactly what you show me--brain abnormality. This

as I have said before, and as Szasz has said before, strengthens the

argument against your position. Show me some mind abnormalities,

Pete. Show me a mind, Pete.

[Guest guest]

>

> There are aspects of American politics and culture I dislike Tommy,

> as there is no doubt much that you dnt like abut ours and I have

> apologized for some prejudicial attitudes have shown in the past.

I don't recall ever criticizing your culture, and by all means

criticize the American government, because the government of the U.S.

is the most powerfull and dangerous in the world. Just as the British

government was once the most powerfull and dangerous in the world.

Power corrupts. People are still fighting over lines draw by the

British empire, but I do not criticize your today's population for

that. You have been displaying a chip-on-your-shoulder additude

toward the American people for years, sort of like a

my-dog-is-as-big-as-yours type chip. I recall your pissing off people

on this list to the point that one long time member said you were

somewhat of a prick and another said he hoped your nuts rotted off.

You continue on with your lofty-perch stance.

> No Tommy, I'm just not going to roll over to the local

anti-psychiatry

> religion that appears to have become established here. Given the

level

> of personal abuse you keep heaping on me, and also a previous pledge

> not to debate this with me in future, I suggest you are the one who

is

> acxting like an outraged zealot. As a defender of the right to be

> socially abnormal and opponent of established religion you ought to

> support my right to express my views.

I do support your right to express your view, just as I support my

right to tell you to believe what you want but don't force it on me,

which is what you propose with your state-supported witchcraft known

as the Therapeutic State.

>

> You said " dream on " to me when I defended psychiatry. Psychiatry

> exists in almost the same form in every Industrialied nation on

earth.

> It treats millions of patients worldwide. It is as respectable a

> branch of medicine as Obstetrics, yet you would abolish it.

This is your prime method of pissing people off. I have never said

that psychiatry should be abolished any more than I have said

Lutheranism, Catholicism, or Hinduism should be abolished. SHOW ME

WHERE I HAVE SAID THIS, pete. You slander me by saying shit like

this. Practice your fantasies all you want, just don't expect me to

underwrite their propagation. Are you able to grasp what I am saying,

or is the separation of state and anything too deep for a

hardcore statist to handle?

There

> happens to be a large number of psychiatry skeptics on this list,

and

> the only other vocal supporter was succesfully hounded off it, but

who

> exactly is the " dreamer " here Tommy when it comes to the overall

> consensus and the likely future of Psychiatry?

Consensus!!! Ah yes, Pete, the tyranny of the majority. Can you do no

better than that? " Hounded off " ? I have not forgotten your response

to Miss Hell's post about joining the Libertarian Party, and I am

going to find it and re-post it.

[Guest guest]

>

> There are aspects of American politics and culture I dislike Tommy,

> as there is no doubt much that you dnt like abut ours and I have

> apologized for some prejudicial attitudes have shown in the past.

I don't recall ever criticizing your culture, and by all means

criticize the American government, because the government of the U.S.

is the most powerfull and dangerous in the world. Just as the British

government was once the most powerfull and dangerous in the world.

Power corrupts. People are still fighting over lines draw by the

British empire, but I do not criticize your today's population for

that. You have been displaying a chip-on-your-shoulder additude

toward the American people for years, sort of like a

my-dog-is-as-big-as-yours type chip. I recall your pissing off people

on this list to the point that one long time member said you were

somewhat of a prick and another said he hoped your nuts rotted off.

You continue on with your lofty-perch stance.

> No Tommy, I'm just not going to roll over to the local

anti-psychiatry

> religion that appears to have become established here. Given the

level

> of personal abuse you keep heaping on me, and also a previous pledge

> not to debate this with me in future, I suggest you are the one who

is

> acxting like an outraged zealot. As a defender of the right to be

> socially abnormal and opponent of established religion you ought to

> support my right to express my views.

I do support your right to express your view, just as I support my

right to tell you to believe what you want but don't force it on me,

which is what you propose with your state-supported witchcraft known

as the Therapeutic State.

>

> You said " dream on " to me when I defended psychiatry. Psychiatry

> exists in almost the same form in every Industrialied nation on

earth.

> It treats millions of patients worldwide. It is as respectable a

> branch of medicine as Obstetrics, yet you would abolish it.

This is your prime method of pissing people off. I have never said

that psychiatry should be abolished any more than I have said

Lutheranism, Catholicism, or Hinduism should be abolished. SHOW ME

WHERE I HAVE SAID THIS, pete. You slander me by saying shit like

this. Practice your fantasies all you want, just don't expect me to

underwrite their propagation. Are you able to grasp what I am saying,

or is the separation of state and anything too deep for a

hardcore statist to handle?

There

> happens to be a large number of psychiatry skeptics on this list,

and

> the only other vocal supporter was succesfully hounded off it, but

who

> exactly is the " dreamer " here Tommy when it comes to the overall

> consensus and the likely future of Psychiatry?

Consensus!!! Ah yes, Pete, the tyranny of the majority. Can you do no

better than that? " Hounded off " ? I have not forgotten your response

to Miss Hell's post about joining the Libertarian Party, and I am

going to find it and re-post it.

[Guest guest]

> As I have said

> before, but you obviously cannot grasp, when you show me brain

> abnormality that is exactly what you show me--brain abnormality.

This

> as I have said before, and as Szasz has said before, strengthens the

> argument against your position. Show me some mind abnormalities,

> Pete. Show me a mind, Pete.

Well I see swearing off debating psychiatry with me hasnt lasted very

long. In what way does showing a brain abnormality weaken my

position? I thought a major part of the beef about psychiatry was

that diseases are normally visible abnormalities, and that it was

claimed that none were visible in the case of psych disorders. Well,

increasingly they are.

You want to see a mind abnormality? I could easily show you one on

another yahoogroup I belong to, but I'm not going to out of fairness

to the person concerned, and also that if you were to show up saying

" Hey Pete reckons youre whacko " then it could only serve to make her

situation worse. As it happens somebody else has already performed

that role presumably because he thought it was the right thing to do,

and I hope he sleeps alright after doing so.

Believing you are being harassed and persecuted by beings that dont

exist is a mind abnormality in a manner that is physically impossible

and not part of the person's religious culture is a mind abnormality

that sometmes ppl have. Now I'm sure youre going to trivialise this,

compare it to things to which it is not comparable, claim that I dont

have he right to say what is normal and what isnt and quite a lot

besides, but the fact is, that schizophenia is like pornography,

pretty hard to define, but easy to know it when you see it!

[Guest guest]

> As I have said

> before, but you obviously cannot grasp, when you show me brain

> abnormality that is exactly what you show me--brain abnormality.

This

> as I have said before, and as Szasz has said before, strengthens the

> argument against your position. Show me some mind abnormalities,

> Pete. Show me a mind, Pete.

Well I see swearing off debating psychiatry with me hasnt lasted very

long. In what way does showing a brain abnormality weaken my

position? I thought a major part of the beef about psychiatry was

that diseases are normally visible abnormalities, and that it was

claimed that none were visible in the case of psych disorders. Well,

increasingly they are.

You want to see a mind abnormality? I could easily show you one on

another yahoogroup I belong to, but I'm not going to out of fairness

to the person concerned, and also that if you were to show up saying

" Hey Pete reckons youre whacko " then it could only serve to make her

situation worse. As it happens somebody else has already performed

that role presumably because he thought it was the right thing to do,

and I hope he sleeps alright after doing so.

Believing you are being harassed and persecuted by beings that dont

exist is a mind abnormality in a manner that is physically impossible

and not part of the person's religious culture is a mind abnormality

that sometmes ppl have. Now I'm sure youre going to trivialise this,

compare it to things to which it is not comparable, claim that I dont

have he right to say what is normal and what isnt and quite a lot

besides, but the fact is, that schizophenia is like pornography,

pretty hard to define, but easy to know it when you see it!

[Guest guest]

> As I have said

> before, but you obviously cannot grasp, when you show me brain

> abnormality that is exactly what you show me--brain abnormality.

This

> as I have said before, and as Szasz has said before, strengthens the

> argument against your position. Show me some mind abnormalities,

> Pete. Show me a mind, Pete.

Well I see swearing off debating psychiatry with me hasnt lasted very

long. In what way does showing a brain abnormality weaken my

position? I thought a major part of the beef about psychiatry was

that diseases are normally visible abnormalities, and that it was

claimed that none were visible in the case of psych disorders. Well,

increasingly they are.

You want to see a mind abnormality? I could easily show you one on

another yahoogroup I belong to, but I'm not going to out of fairness

to the person concerned, and also that if you were to show up saying

" Hey Pete reckons youre whacko " then it could only serve to make her

situation worse. As it happens somebody else has already performed

that role presumably because he thought it was the right thing to do,

and I hope he sleeps alright after doing so.

Believing you are being harassed and persecuted by beings that dont

exist is a mind abnormality in a manner that is physically impossible

and not part of the person's religious culture is a mind abnormality

that sometmes ppl have. Now I'm sure youre going to trivialise this,

compare it to things to which it is not comparable, claim that I dont

have he right to say what is normal and what isnt and quite a lot

besides, but the fact is, that schizophenia is like pornography,

pretty hard to define, but easy to know it when you see it!

[Guest guest]

> You continue on with your lofty-perch stance.

No actually I dont Tommy. I could respond to your tirade in greater

detail, but I will content myself with pointing you that I might be a

little more comfortable with attacks on nineteenth century British

imperialism than on your ever-present ones on me personally. The

important point is that I could be the most anti-american bigot on

this planet nd it would have nothing to do with the validity of my

views on psychiatry, and youre just digging all this up because I wont

stay quiet on the subject and you havent got the strength to accept

that or to stck to your resolve to keep out of it.

> I do support your right to express your view, just as I support my

> right to tell you to believe what you want but don't force it on me,

> which is what you propose with your state-supported witchcraft known

> as the Therapeutic State.

And I have reminded you we live in separate countries, but if we I

dont want youre Libertarian " Rot in the Streets you loser " or Rot in

jail you poor loser " attitude to the mentally ill either.

> This is your prime method of pissing people off. I have never said

> that psychiatry should be abolished any more than I have said

> Lutheranism, Catholicism, or Hinduism should be abolished. SHOW ME

> WHERE I HAVE SAID THIS, pete. You slander me by saying shit like

> this. Practice your fantasies all you want, just don't expect me to

> underwrite their propagation. Are you able to grasp what I am

saying,

> or is the separation of state and anything too deep for a

> hardcore statist to handle?

Well you seem to think that mental illness doesnt exist, so what

exactly would be the point of having psychiatry in that case? If your

view prevailed, wouldnt that be equivalent to an abolition of

psychiatry? Although, when I asked you how you would determine if

someone was genuinely incapable of managing their affairs, you would

say it would be done by judges on the basis of medical advice. I

pointed out that that is almost what is done in the present case,

except that the docs have initially more power but that these ppl do

have legal redress. So apart perhpas from a slight sift in the balance

of power, what exactly is wrong with the present system other than you

dont like the kind of decision that psychiatrists make?

> Consensus!!! Ah yes, Pete, the tyranny of the majority. Can you do

>no better than that?

I dont claim it as authority that I am right; I was just using it as

an indication as to who is the dreamer.

> " Hounded off " ? I have not forgotten your

>response

> to Miss Hell's post about joining the Libertarian Party, and I am

> going to find it and re-post it.

Someone called " Miss Hell " sounds quite capable of defending herself,

and if you really dont like the views I express here, it is very good

of you to keep reposting them for me!

[Guest guest]

> You continue on with your lofty-perch stance.

No actually I dont Tommy. I could respond to your tirade in greater

detail, but I will content myself with pointing you that I might be a

little more comfortable with attacks on nineteenth century British

imperialism than on your ever-present ones on me personally. The

important point is that I could be the most anti-american bigot on

this planet nd it would have nothing to do with the validity of my

views on psychiatry, and youre just digging all this up because I wont

stay quiet on the subject and you havent got the strength to accept

that or to stck to your resolve to keep out of it.

> I do support your right to express your view, just as I support my

> right to tell you to believe what you want but don't force it on me,

> which is what you propose with your state-supported witchcraft known

> as the Therapeutic State.

And I have reminded you we live in separate countries, but if we I

dont want youre Libertarian " Rot in the Streets you loser " or Rot in

jail you poor loser " attitude to the mentally ill either.

> This is your prime method of pissing people off. I have never said

> that psychiatry should be abolished any more than I have said

> Lutheranism, Catholicism, or Hinduism should be abolished. SHOW ME

> WHERE I HAVE SAID THIS, pete. You slander me by saying shit like

> this. Practice your fantasies all you want, just don't expect me to

> underwrite their propagation. Are you able to grasp what I am

saying,

> or is the separation of state and anything too deep for a

> hardcore statist to handle?

Well you seem to think that mental illness doesnt exist, so what

exactly would be the point of having psychiatry in that case? If your

view prevailed, wouldnt that be equivalent to an abolition of

psychiatry? Although, when I asked you how you would determine if

someone was genuinely incapable of managing their affairs, you would

say it would be done by judges on the basis of medical advice. I

pointed out that that is almost what is done in the present case,

except that the docs have initially more power but that these ppl do

have legal redress. So apart perhpas from a slight sift in the balance

of power, what exactly is wrong with the present system other than you

dont like the kind of decision that psychiatrists make?

> Consensus!!! Ah yes, Pete, the tyranny of the majority. Can you do

>no better than that?

I dont claim it as authority that I am right; I was just using it as

an indication as to who is the dreamer.

> " Hounded off " ? I have not forgotten your

>response

> to Miss Hell's post about joining the Libertarian Party, and I am

> going to find it and re-post it.

Someone called " Miss Hell " sounds quite capable of defending herself,

and if you really dont like the views I express here, it is very good

of you to keep reposting them for me!

[Guest guest]

> You continue on with your lofty-perch stance.

No actually I dont Tommy. I could respond to your tirade in greater

detail, but I will content myself with pointing you that I might be a

little more comfortable with attacks on nineteenth century British

imperialism than on your ever-present ones on me personally. The

important point is that I could be the most anti-american bigot on

this planet nd it would have nothing to do with the validity of my

views on psychiatry, and youre just digging all this up because I wont

stay quiet on the subject and you havent got the strength to accept

that or to stck to your resolve to keep out of it.

> I do support your right to express your view, just as I support my

> right to tell you to believe what you want but don't force it on me,

> which is what you propose with your state-supported witchcraft known

> as the Therapeutic State.

And I have reminded you we live in separate countries, but if we I

dont want youre Libertarian " Rot in the Streets you loser " or Rot in

jail you poor loser " attitude to the mentally ill either.

> This is your prime method of pissing people off. I have never said

> that psychiatry should be abolished any more than I have said

> Lutheranism, Catholicism, or Hinduism should be abolished. SHOW ME

> WHERE I HAVE SAID THIS, pete. You slander me by saying shit like

> this. Practice your fantasies all you want, just don't expect me to

> underwrite their propagation. Are you able to grasp what I am

saying,

> or is the separation of state and anything too deep for a

> hardcore statist to handle?

Well you seem to think that mental illness doesnt exist, so what

exactly would be the point of having psychiatry in that case? If your

view prevailed, wouldnt that be equivalent to an abolition of

psychiatry? Although, when I asked you how you would determine if

someone was genuinely incapable of managing their affairs, you would

say it would be done by judges on the basis of medical advice. I

pointed out that that is almost what is done in the present case,

except that the docs have initially more power but that these ppl do

have legal redress. So apart perhpas from a slight sift in the balance

of power, what exactly is wrong with the present system other than you

dont like the kind of decision that psychiatrists make?

> Consensus!!! Ah yes, Pete, the tyranny of the majority. Can you do

>no better than that?

I dont claim it as authority that I am right; I was just using it as

an indication as to who is the dreamer.

> " Hounded off " ? I have not forgotten your

>response

> to Miss Hell's post about joining the Libertarian Party, and I am

> going to find it and re-post it.

Someone called " Miss Hell " sounds quite capable of defending herself,

and if you really dont like the views I express here, it is very good

of you to keep reposting them for me!

[Guest guest]

> And I have reminded you we live in separate countries, but if we I

> dont want youre Libertarian " Rot in the Streets you loser " or Rot in

> jail you poor loser " attitude to the mentally ill either.

Nor do I need your " I need a royal nanny to wipe my royal fanny. "

> Someone called " Miss Hell " sounds quite capable of defending

herself,

So does an NRA member with a degree in political science from the

University of Texas.

[Guest guest]

> And I have reminded you we live in separate countries, but if we I

> dont want youre Libertarian " Rot in the Streets you loser " or Rot in

> jail you poor loser " attitude to the mentally ill either.

Nor do I need your " I need a royal nanny to wipe my royal fanny. "

> Someone called " Miss Hell " sounds quite capable of defending

herself,

So does an NRA member with a degree in political science from the

University of Texas.

[Guest guest]

> And I have reminded you we live in separate countries, but if we I

> dont want youre Libertarian " Rot in the Streets you loser " or Rot in

> jail you poor loser " attitude to the mentally ill either.

Nor do I need your " I need a royal nanny to wipe my royal fanny. "

> Someone called " Miss Hell " sounds quite capable of defending

herself,

So does an NRA member with a degree in political science from the

University of Texas.

[Guest guest]

> > And I have reminded you we live in separate countries, but if we I

> > dont want youre Libertarian " Rot in the Streets you loser " or Rot

in

> > jail you poor loser " attitude to the mentally ill either.

>

> Nor do I need your " I need a royal nanny to wipe my royal fanny. "

And this is from someone who is making a sound argument Tommy? You

were the first to start deriding the others political views. Cant you

really do no better than just this " neener neener " stuff?

Dixie may be an NRA member with a dgree but she's still a human being;

she doesnt make a provocative statement to the world by calling

herself " Miss Hell " . You abused her by calling her " Miss Texas Tax

Us " . You know what I think abt the NRA but I didnt call her 'Miss

Shoot Us.'

You accuse me of having a chip on my shoulder, but because you got

whacked by 12-step you seem to have started a one man crusade to

destroy the mental health profession. You're a bright guy and as you

say you have some talented folks like Szasz on your side. Do you

really have to be so abusive and intolerant toward ppl who disagree

with you?

A while back I did make some unpleasant comments to you I regret. I

could make more but I wont. Looks like I'm going to have to respond

to your posts the way I did to s, impersonally, from now

on, which I find rather sad.

Good night. Long live and prosper etc.

P.

[Guest guest]

I prefer to think of myself as assertive, rather than churlish.

However, the tone of my response was probably elicited by your saying

that in the U.S., private associations decide what the scopes of

various counseling practices are, and that is simply not true.

> > The scope of what psychiatrists may do is defined by medical

> > associations. The scope of what psychologists, social workers,

> > counselors, etc., may do is usually defined by state licensing

> boards,

> > and these definitions vary greatly state to state. In some states

> you

> > can be a psychotherapist without licensing. Actually there are

many

> > other types of unlicensed professions that infringe to some extent

> on

> > psychotherapy, such as " lifestyle consultant " (encompassing a

> variety

> > of practices, whose number is limited by your imagination) or

> > " personal coach. " You can be a hypnotist in many places without

> > licensing. You can be a neurolinguistic programming practitioner

> > without licensing. The U.S. truly is the land of the free.

> >

> > What special knowledge do you have that qualifies you to make

> > statements about the status of psychotherapy in the United States?

>

> (Not " special " maybe but likely better than yours about why Swiss

ppl

> keep guns, and more politely expressed). I've read about it. What

you

> say above appears to agree with what I have been saying all along:

> there is no *legal* requirement to be a doctor to be a psychoanalyst

> in the US, though many professional psychoanalytic associations may

> require it. So why the churlishness?

[Guest guest]

>

>

> > > And I have reminded you we live in separate countries, but if we

I

> > > dont want youre Libertarian " Rot in the Streets you loser " or

Rot

> in

> > > jail you poor loser " attitude to the mentally ill either.

When you put words like this in " my " mouth, you are fair game for just

about anything. Good luck, Pete.

[Guest guest]

>

>

> > > And I have reminded you we live in separate countries, but if we

I

> > > dont want youre Libertarian " Rot in the Streets you loser " or

Rot

> in

> > > jail you poor loser " attitude to the mentally ill either.

When you put words like this in " my " mouth, you are fair game for just

about anything. Good luck, Pete.