----- Original Message -----
From: "Henry Gould" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, April 07, 2003 7:59 PM
Subject: Re: resignations
> I think I have already pointed out how the abuse of
> professional authority out of context applies across
> the board (in previous remarks on the effect, say, of a lawyer or a
policeman using such authority to make
> ad hominem remarks in public debate). Mark's example of a priest is simply
a less believable analogy (a priest would not take God's name in vain,
especially in such circumstances), but the negative consequences still
apply.
>
> Mark states "I haven't practiced in a while". Does this make it all right
for a professional to use pseudo-clinical
> terminology to belittle an opponent? Apparently, for
> Rebecca and Randolph, MARK'S PROFESSIONAL STATUS ACTUALLY
> MAKES HIS ATTACK MORE EFFECTIVE. That response is itself
> the clearest evidence of just how abusive it
> can be. The fact that the object of the attack has left
> the list makes it no less out of line.
>
> As for your final spiteful comment, Mark : my son & I are
> not ashamed of his condition. It's the use of a medical
> condition to belittle a person, or question his or her
> abilities, which we recognize as potentially harmful in
> the extreme. It's the application of such insinuations
> in the context of a political debate, having nothing to do with the issues
at hand, by a member of that profession, which I am saying is out-of-line
and unprofessional.
> It is one thing to examine the writings or extended
> statements of a person & judge them evidence of insanity.
> It is quite another for a psychiatric professional to
> latch onto a single opinion posted in discussion, and
> suggest that its sender may need psychiatric treatment,
> and then to defend that kind of ad hominem, and then
> to see it defended by others as "coming from a professional". This is the
kind of thing that sent
> dissidents into psychiatric prisons in Soviet Russia.
> As a professional, I am surprised this issue
> is of no consequence to you.
>
> Henry
>
> Mark Weiss wrote:
>
> "Oh Christ, Henry, if a priest tells you to go to hell do you think he's
> endangering your soul? Does the priest need to run to the nearest
> confessional? Or is he just using the common language, which also happens
> to be, but in a different and universally understood context, the language
> of his profession?
>
> If the priest leaves the cloth how many years have to elapse do you think
> before he can tell you to go to hell? Closer to home, if I haven't
> practiced in a while am I allowed to use colloquial terminology?
>
> This is a non-issue, and I think smells of desperation, tho why you should
> feel desperate is beyond me. Take solace from the fact that regardless of
> the squabbling of poets the enormous destruction you seem to think
> justified is actually happening.
>
> Did you by the way consult your child before announcing to the world that
> he's in treatment?"
>
|