oops, that's supposed to be 'aspersion' not 'dispersion'
and I forgot part of the quote too, and there may be other
errors,  since this screen is giving me a 2 by 8 view
and which is a bit difficult,

Rebecca

Rebecca Seiferle
www.thedrunkenboat.com
-------Original Message-------
From: Rebecca Seiferle <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: 04/04/03 10:50 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: resignations

>
> Henry,
I think I do understand the issue as I understand it which is not
to say as you do. A difference in understanding is not a failure
of it, though that seems to be an intellectual virus that is running
rampant on this list of late. And I suspect related to that other
virus, "war fever."

You say <<by saying "if he's a
professional">> that you are "simply stating your own lack of knowledge
about his
professional status."  because you give yourself the benefit of the doubt,
knowing what you meant. On the other hand, that could be viewed
as a dispersion on someone's professional status, suggesting that
someone is not a 'real' mental health professional, but only pretending
to be, and which could become quite a serious matter as well.

But the remark by Weiss that you complain about it is:
<<"Ok, altho I think you're in serious need of psychiatric attention, I'll
   agree to disagree.">>

You take part of that remark "I think you're in serious need
of psychiatric attention" and base your complaint upon it.
While ignoring the rest of it, the "ok," the "altho" and the "agree to
disagree," all which put the remark in a much different context.
You do not give his remark the benefit of the doubt that you
grant to your own.

My point was to grant Weiss's remark the benefit of the doubt.
I did think at the time that his remark was too much, but it was in an
exchange where a number
of remarks like that were being made by both parties. I think
for the list managers it must be like trying to referee a dirty
fight, when both parties are 'almost' hitting below the belt. But I also
had the impression that there was some back channel conversation,
some addressing of the issue, and that it was over and done with,
mostly marked by the fact of both parties 'cooling off' by leaving,
one by resignation, and Weiss less definitively. So it does seem
to me that you are making too much out of this, coming in much
after the fact and demanding that the list owners demand an apology
from Weiss. It _feels_ to me like an authority trip.

Rebecca

Rebecca Seiferle
<a target=_blank
href="http://www.thedrunkenboat.com">www.thedrunkenboat.com</a>





-------Original Message-------
From: Henry Gould <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: 04/04/03 11:18 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: resignations

>
> I don't think you understand the issue, Rebecca.
I'm not challenging Mark's credentials.  By saying "if he's a
professional"
I'm simply stating my own lack of knowledge about his professional status.

My argument is that it is inappropriate for a professional psychologist to
make comments like the following, about another list member, on a public
list:

"Ok, altho I think you're in serious need of psychiatric attention, I'll
   agree to disagree."

This may seem very mild.  But it's definitely 1) abuse of profession; 2)
inappropriate in this venue.  It's an ad hominem attack, questioning a
person's sanity in public, using the authority of professional
status.  Totally out of line.

Unless you think it's okay for professional people to use their status to
make public insults.  Say, for example, we have a lawyer here, who started
insinuating things about a list member's legal status in some area.  Or a
police officer, making little asides about somebody's possible criminal
record.  Is that okay with you?  What Mark Weiss did was no different, &
that's why I stated originally that an apology was in order.

Henry