From: wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck)
Subject: Re: Stranded on an Island
Organization: Applied Computing Devices, Inc., Terre Haute IN
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 19:41:50 GMT

In <BtxrKx.E6u.2@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu 
   (Susan Garvin) writes: >
In article <1992Sep1.192252.368@acd4.acd.com> wdo@TEFS1.acd.com 
   (Bill Overpeck) writes:
#In <BtvCwr.G94.2@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu 
#   (Susan Garvin) writes: 
#In article <1992Aug31.144107.23778@acd4.acd.com> wdo@TEFS1.acd.com 
#   (Bill Overpeck) writes: 
#
##Passive-aggressive behavior is also unhealthy, Jim.  
#
##When laypeople refer to someone else's mental problems on
##the net, I doubt that anyone takes them seriously.  (When
##I make such comments, I don't expect that anyone reading 
##them will say, "Hmm, that diagnosis must be correct.")  When
##someone who has claimed in the past to be a mental health
##practicioner does so, though, more weight might be given
##to the comments.  Just how ethical is it for you to practice 
##psychology in newsgroups?
#
#Observing the nature of a given behavior doesn't constitute a 
#diagnosis (passive agressive behavior is not the same as Passive
#Agressive Personality Disorder).  

> Fine.  I was technically incorrect.
>
> It does make you appear hypocritical, however, since you 
> criticize Keegan for making an observation about Holtsinger
> and denial, saying that he doesn't have enough information
> to make that judgment while simultaneously making an
> observation about Jim's behavior.

I thought about that prior to posting.  My intention was to 
convey that inappropriate inferences can be made about *his*
(Keegan's) behavior, too.  But your point is still valid.

#Nor does it imply that I am 
#"practicing psychology" which, among other things, requires a 
#license to do so (I'm a clinical social worker), a mutually 
#agreed upon set of goals between provider and client (or his 
#agent), a signed consent to treatment, and a contract which
#describes the basis upon which services will be provided.

> Again, I was technically incorrect.  I hope that you
> understood my meaning anyway.

My comment to Jim wasn't unethical, but you're basically 
right.  It would in fact be highly unethical for me to 
suggest that he was suffering from a mental disorder.

##Your implication is extremely prejudicial.  
#
##As is yours.
#
#How so?  My comments didn't characterize an entire group of 
#people in a negative way.  On the other hand, when someone
#says "see your therapist" in an obviously insincere and flip-
#pant manner, it implies that people in therapy are worthy of
#ridicule.

> I disagree.  
>
> I think Holtsinger should see a therapist.  

Why?  

> I'm not sure
> why you think Keegan doesn't agree with me.  

Primarily because of his flippancy and his (recent) tendency
to participate only in ad hominem discussions (e.g., Kevin 
Darcy, Beth Bartley, CJ Silverio).  

> Did you gain telepathic powers when you got your MSW?

Oh, I don't think telepathy is necessary in order to make 
some simple inferences.  

##Are people in therapy somehow unworthy of your respect?
#
##Do you treat your clients this way?
#
#With respect?  Yes.  It's offensive to imply that membership 
#in that population is somehow demeaning.

> No, not "with respect".  Do you condescend to them like you
> do to people on the net?  

My perception is that my posts are relatively mild in comparison 
to most, but perceptions vary and I'll admit that I do get pretty 
cynical on occasion.  However, given that you infer condescension 
in my posts without the aid of telepathy, why do you think I can't
get along without it, too? 

> Again, I think that someone who is apparently incapable of
> telling the truth has problems and should get some help.

I don't know of anyone who's "incapable" of telling the truth.
People lie for a variety of reasons.  Inferring pathology seems
like quite a leap, especially over the net.

> I don't think that this opinion implies that I don't
> respect people who need help.  

That's true, but you've said it in a very different way.

> I'm still not sure why
> you think "See your therapist" is an insult.  

Several things.  First, it *assumes* that Doug has one, which
is highly presumptuous.  He also calls him "doodie" which isn't
the way I'd expect someone to address a person they were con-
cerned about (especially in view of the fact that "doodie" is
apparently a derivative of DOD, which wasn't awarded to Doug
with any sort of affection).  Last, the most significant thing 
about such a remark is that it implicitly derogates people who 
*do* have therapists.  It's like calling someone "retarded" as 
an insult; such a comment reflects a prejudice toward people
who are mentally retarded.  Don't you think that's offensive?

> I'm starting to think that you just wanted to flame Jim
> and this was the only avenue available.

No, I'm not interested in conflict for its own sake.

> Susan,
> who is grateful that she won't be getting any e-mail from
> the "Never Argue with Overpeck" bomber this time

Would that have been Siren?  I'm touched.

Bill