HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.psycgrad
Date:         Wed, 9 Sep 1992 09:52:58 PDT
              <PSYCGRAD@UOTTAWA.BITNET>
From:         Rick Adams <adamsr@NETCOM.COM>
Subject:      Re: Anima
              92 1:38 pm

==>     I recommend a book by Jean Shinoda Bolen entitled "Goddesses in
==> Everywoman" and I apologize that I don't have the reference here.  I usedit
==> as a supplental text for the course Psychology of Women.  Also of interest
 is
==> a nice book by Sherry Ruth Anderson and Patricia Hopkins entitled the
==> "Feminine Face of God."  I think it's a must read for both men and women.
 It
==> certainly raised a lot of questions within my own experience.

	The Bolen citation is:

Bolen, J. (1984). "Goddesses in everywoman: A new psychology of women."
	New York: Harper Colophon Books.

	A companion work would be:

Bolen, J. (1989). "Gods in everyman: A new psychology of men's lives
	and loves." New York: Harper & Row.

	I didn't list it earlier, since the original question came from a
man who had been told that he appeared to demonstrate a weak connection with
his anima, and Bolen doesn't tend to address that particular issue. I
_definately_ agree that Bolen is an excellent writer and has a great deal to
say of importance to the profession.

	BTW, for those who think of Jungian psychology as "unscientific," it
might be noted that Bolen is an MD and a full Professor of clinical
psychiatry at the University of California, San Francisco. Many other
authors of works on Jung are psychiatrists as well.

--
    rick.adams on GEnie   /|\  Reliable and affordable public access to
     adamsr@netcom.com  /  |  \  telecommunications services is the
    adamsr@irie.ais.org \ /|\ /  first step toward a global community.
   adamsr@norwich.bitnet  \|/  Send Email for files on GEnie and Netcom.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.psycgrad
Date:         Sat, 5 Sep 1992 12:13:16 EDT
              <PSYCGRAD@UOTTAWA.BITNET>
From:         Rodney Timbrook <RTIMBROO@KENTVM.BITNET>
Subject: Re: Psych-iatry vs -ology?
              5 Sep 1992 02:23:00 EDT from <zorrilla@CATTELL.PSYCH.UPENN.EDU>

And interesting discussion on prescription privileges!  Just to add my
thoughts, I don't feel that neither prescription privileges nor
admissions privileges are all that desirable for most psychologists to
have.  Probably first and foremost, it seems that neither privilege is
lucrative.  It seems that at one time those privileges would have been a
great advantage for psychologists to have had; however, today, with the
burgeoning of managed health care and cost containment measures, it just
isn't worth the hassle for most psychologists to even bother.  It might
be favorable for a minority of clinical psychologists, but not for most.
Would most psychologists be willing to go back to graduate school?  Or
those of us still in graduate school, would we be willing to tag on at
least an additional 2 to 3 years to our already 6-year minimum training?
After being in graduate school for 5 years, I couldn't picture myself
trying to continue another 2 to 3 years.  This could mean 10 years of
graduate training if someone wanted to gain prescription privileges--and
for others who do take nearly that long with the scientist-practitioner
model, can you imagine them wanting to spend 15 years to get their
Ph.D.?

While adding prescription privileges and admission privileges might,
just might, help some people be more effective clinicians, there seems
to be more, broader issues in this debate.  What is the future role of the
clinical psychologist?  As more psychotherapy positions are filled with
people with degrees in social work and "counseling", where is the
psychologist going to practice?  Adding prescription privileges to our
qualifications is not going to push psychiatrists out of their business,
but it might hinder us finding jobs by overqualifying ourselves.   Trying
to get psychologists into this niche of functioning as a psychiatrist
might just make it more difficult for psychologist to get jobs in an
already difficult job market.  Psychiatry is not going to easily give up
their turf, even if legislated.  So, again, I ask for other's opinions on
where they do see the profession of clinical psychology heading?  I'm not
sure that I even have an answer to this one!
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <zorrilla@cattell.psych.upenn.edu>
Posted-Date: Wed, 9 Sep 92 9:35:21 EDT
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL10]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.psycgrad
Date:         Wed, 9 Sep 1992 09:35:21 EDT
              <PSYCGRAD@UOTTAWA.BITNET>
From:         Eric Zorrilla <zorrilla@CATTELL.PSYCH.UPENN.EDU>
Subject: Re: Psych-iatry vs -ology?
              92 9:27 pm

>  Should future MD's who already know their chosen specialty
>  also be excused from all those unrelated and irrelevant courses?

>      In response to this question, Eric said:
                                     ^^^^
Actually, it was Rick Adams who said what you quoted.  Give credit (or blame)
where it's due.  :-)

>      On a perhaps unrelated note, it seems interesting that this push for
> prescription privileges (which would most likely affect psychiatrists'
> incomes, and not other specialities) comes at a time when women are beginning
> to dominate (in numbers) the field of psychiatry.  One wonders...

I'm curious.  What ARE the current numbers with regards to women's proportion
of clinical psychologists vs their proportion og psychiatrists.  I knew
(thought?) that they dominated clinical psych but had perceived quite the
opposite in the field of psychiatry.  Are my stereotypes unfounded (gasp!)?

>      Nangel (who will regrettably miss the rest of this most fascinating
> discussion).

Where are you going?

Eric
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Encoding: 17 TEXT
X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 (beta-1)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.psycgrad
Date:         Sat, 5 Sep 1992 12:34:00 PDT
              <PSYCGRAD@UOTTAWA.BITNET>
From:         lindberg@PSYCH.SSCNET.UCLA.EDU
Subject: Re: Psych-iatry vs -ology?

     I'm sticking to my guns that all those courses and rotations that
medical students must take before they can prescribe are not irrelevant for
anyone who wants the rights and responsibilities of prescribing drugs.
     Eric claims that theoretical knowledge and clinical experience in
seemingly unrelated areas (such as derm, OB/GYN, etc) are unnecessary for
psychologists who want to prescribe only for mental illnesses.  So, should
future MDs that KNOW they want to be, for example, dermatologists also be
excused from all those unrelated and irrelevant courses?
     This desire for prescription rights and responsibilities without the
bulk of a broad medical education would set a dangerous precedent, and would
accellerate the trend toward the formation of super-specialized medical
technicians, abandoning all together the notion of the body as a whole, as an
interactive collection of systems whose balance affect and depend on one
another.  Soon, the clinical right hand would not know what the left one was
doing.
     Nangel
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <zorrilla@cattell.psych.upenn.edu>
Posted-Date: Sat, 5 Sep 92 2:23:00 EDT
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL10]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.psycgrad
Date:         Sat, 5 Sep 1992 02:23:00 EDT
              <PSYCGRAD@UOTTAWA.BITNET>
From:         Eric Zorrilla <zorrilla@CATTELL.PSYCH.UPENN.EDU>
Subject: Re: Psych-iatry vs -ology?

Continuing on the thread....

Tim has repeatedly raised the issue of liability (both financial and ethical)
that is raised by the spectre of allowing psychologists to prescribe drugs.
While this is an important concern, I think it is a question to be decided
by the individual involved and not one that should be legislated.  It might
be, for example, that psychologists might have to pay much more $$$ for
insurance initially than psychiatrists until their track record is proven
to be equivalent.  Ethical liability, is a slightly more difficult one to
have market forces create the solution with, admittedly.

Tim, Nangel and Rick all raise the issue of where is the dividing line and,
coupled with that, will this create a domino effect where all allied mental
health professionals move for prescription privileges.  I really don't see
such a movement as plausible.  1st of all, even within our own ranks, we see
that the push is FAR from unanimous.  Social workers, educational psychologists
and clergymen tend to have a less biological approach to mental health
and also tend to have a less biologically based undergraduate and graduate
training.  I doubt that they would want or claim to be qualified for such
a role (possibly in the same manner that Nangel has said a pharmacology
course is repulsive :)  ).

Nangel again raises the issue of why isn't the current resource of an MD/PhD
program sufficient.  I think it is (for my purposes):

	1) Extraneous (dermatology, global anatomy, ob/gyn, etc.)
	2) Not coherent - an MD degree tends to have a very different approach
to mental illness than a PhD in psychology.  MD's are solution oriented where
PhD's are question oriented.  Forcing someone to go through two programs with
such different emphases seems contradictory.

I do agree with an earlier statement by Tim that admission privileges are
even more crucial.  I heard during undergrad that it had been granted to
psychologists in California with Cap v. Rank.  Is this true?  What's the
current status of admission privileges around the nation?

Eric Zorrilla
(That's 2 r's, BTW, Tim.  :)   )
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.psycgrad
Date:         Sat, 5 Sep 1992 14:29:00 EDT
              <PSYCGRAD@UOTTAWA.BITNET>
From:         "David M. Fresco" <FRESCO@UNC.BITNET>
Subject:      Anima replies to Rich and Don

Rich,
Thank you for a well thought out, sensible statement summarizing the
posts made by Rick and me.  I tend to agree with everything you say.  In
my so far limited role as a clinician, I too would consider myself as
you say the practical eclectic.  I won't ignore the benefits that a
client may receive from insight into a problem, nor will I dismiss the
relevance of events that occur in childhood or adolesence.  Still, I
will not apply a psychodynamic formulation to these issues.  Nor will I
simply describe such issues in terms of contingencies and reinforcers.
Plain english will suffice.
If I understand your statement that C-B is not a developmental approach,
I will concede that point.  Yet, few C-B thoreticians deny the
importance of having a strong background in developmental psychology
especially when treating children.  If I've misconstrued your point,
please elaborate.
You also bring up the point of the unconscious.  Pesonally, I'm still
struggling with what it means.  I have decided that it based on life
experiences and learning rather than a Freudian notion.  Piaget's and
Beck's definitions of schemata are helpful here.
Thank you again for your post.  It was instructive in helping me sort
out what it is I believe.
Don,
Thank you also for your words.  I did consider after posting my initial
response that it might not be helpful to the original poster.  I felt
somewhat badly about it all.  I feel strongly about research in clinical
psychology.  It's hard not to plug research which has been largely
helpful in bettering our understanding of why we are the way we are and
that stands up to scientific scrutiny.
David Fresco
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.psycgrad
Date:         Tue, 8 Sep 1992 20:53:19 EDT
              <PSYCGRAD@UOTTAWA.BITNET>
From:         Paul Lowry <PLOWRY@NERVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Pathological Gambling

I am researching pathological gambling (as defined in DSM III(R)) for a class
this semester.  I am particularly interested in this from a counselor's pers-
pective--How do you treat someone with this label?  If any of you have know-
ledge of printed sources that address this issue, please E-Mail me with the
references.     Thanks,
                Paul Lowry
                PLOWRY@NERVM.BITNET
                Counselor Education Department
                University of Florida
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Encoding: 50 TEXT
X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 (beta-1)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.psycgrad
Date:         Tue, 8 Sep 1992 21:27:00 PDT
              <PSYCGRAD@UOTTAWA.BITNET>
From:         lindberg@PSYCH.SSCNET.UCLA.EDU
Subject: Re: Psych-iatry vs -ology?

 Should future MDs that KNOW they want to be, for example, dermatologists
 also be excused from all those unrelated and irrelevant courses?
     In response to this question, Eric said:
 >    Sure - _provided_ they want only a limited license which does NOT
 > authorize them to  practice medicine - the equivalent of permitting a
 > psychologist to prescribe psychoactive medications.
 >     The type of prescriptive limitations which would certainly be placed
 > on a clinical psychologist would not permit them to prescribe such
 > substances as antibiotics, steroids, or skin  preparations, only
 > psychoactives. Nor would such training prepare a clinician to legally
 > deliver a baby, order an upper GI, or perform surgery ALL of which a
 > dermatologist may LEGALLY do.

     Just for the record: Dermatologists are not the only ones that can
deliver legally.  Policemen and cab drivers do it all the time, but they
don't normally work at labor and delivery rooms, and neither do
dermatologists.  To me, the fact that they have the basic know-how of how the
rest of the body works does not mean that they should be encouraged to step
outside their chosen specialty and into another field.

 >...would certainly not be any more dangerous than the one which already
 > exists that permits physicians to practice psychology (i.e., to treat
 > patients for emotional or mental "disorders") without requiring that THEY
 > obtain a comprehensive education in psychology. To argue that a GP may be
 > trusted to address problems of a behavioral nature, but a
 > neuropsychologist cannot be trusted to manage a client on Librium is
 > absurd.

     Sorry, but this seems like a bit of professional xenophobia: far from
me to glorify psychiatrists, but they do get some kind of education in the
treatment of mental illnesses (although I doubt they'd call it "practicing
psychology").  In previous postings I too repudiated the notioon of med
students or recent medical graduates to treat "mental illness" without the
benefit of a broad and in depth education in psychopathology, assessment, and
intervention.  Interestingly, the argument that many of these shrink-wannabes
give is very similar to the one used by some pro-prescripton psychologists:
Why bother with all that psychology (developmental psych, stats,
psychometrics, etc, etc) if they have all they need: memorization of Freud's
stages of psychosexual development, the DSM, and the ability to name-drop a
few personality disorders...

     On a perhaps unrelated note, it seems interesting that this push for
prescription privileges (which would most likely affect psychiatrists'
incomes, and not other specialities) comes at a time when women are beginning
to dominate (in numbers) the field of psychiatry.  One wonders...

     Nangel (who will regrettably miss the rest of this most fascinating
discussion).
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.notis-l
Date:         Mon, 14 Sep 1992 10:35:57 PDT
From:         James Cruse <CN.NX8@STANFORD.BITNET>
Subject:      MULT flag in LB101TB4

I'm having a problem with the Search List section of the Daily
Operations Report.  For one service unit, the report lists each item
on a separate page, for another su multiple items are listed on a
page.  OK....I remember that there is a MULT flag in LB101TB4 that
is supposed to control this.  I expect that for the su which gets
multiple items on a page the MULT flag will be set and for the other
su it will be absent.  Nice try......both su's have the MULT flag
set!   Any ideas where I can look next?

Jim Cruse

To:  NOTIS-L(NOTIS-L@TCSVM)
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.notis-l
Date:         Mon, 14 Sep 1992 08:36:59 EST
From:         Nancy Orth <LIBADM6@UCONNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Self-serve circ.

Please reply to the List - I think there must be many besides myself who would
be interested in such information.  Thanks.

Nancy M. Orth                     BITNET: LIBADM6@UCONNVM
Head, Circulation/Reserve         FAX:    (203) 486-3593
Homer Babbidge Library            VOICE:  (203) 486-3990
University of Connecticut
Storrs, CT 06269-0005
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.notis-l
Date:         Wed, 9 Sep 1992 12:44:26 EDT
From:         Irene Pelak <pelak@PILOT.NJIN.NET>
Subject:      On-line patron update

What program handles the on-line patron updates?
IRENE PELAK  TECH1  BERGEN COMMUNITY COLLEGE  201-447-9236
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: library
X-pmrqc:      1
X-mailer:     Pegasus Mail v2.3 (R2).
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.notis-l
Date:         Thu, 10 Sep 1992 16:31:29 CST
From:         Beth Nicol <BNICOL@LIB.AUBURN.EDU>
Subject:      Bum Steer Roast
Comments: To: notis-l@vm.tcs.tulane.edu

Please tell me that the BSR won't be on Saturday night.... somebody
bought my airline ticket and is bringing me home on Saturday
evening...  I'd really hate to miss this one!  (But I'm not sure I
can swing the plane fare since I have a non-refundable ticket!)

Congratulations Michael and Leigh!





Beth Nicol                        ************************************
Automation Manager                * Cute Stuff in this box           *
Auburn University Libraries       *                                  *
BITNET:  bnicol@auducvax          *                                  *
INTERNET: bnicol@lib.auburn.edu   ************************************
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.notis-l
Date:         Mon, 14 Sep 1992 19:12:40 -0500
From:         capital!sdewey@UUNET.UU.NET
Subject:      INCORRECT DISPLAY OF HEADINGS USAGE CODES

<<MESSAGE from>> Sally Dewey                          14-SEP-92 19:40
                 sdewey@

 Has anyone encountered a problem in NOTIS 4.6 with incorrect display of
         Heading Usage Codes in the Merged Headings Index  ?
 We have!
 The SEARCH ALSO UNDER headings often disply incorrect codes.
 Anyone know why this is happening?
 Anyone know how to fix this?
 Will NOTIS 5.0 correct this?

 If not appropriate to reply to the List, please contact via email at:
         sdewey@capital.com        (This is shared email)

 OR, contact by phone:   Carl Fisher (703)358-5972
                 fax:    (703)358-5962

 Arlington County Public Library
 1015 N. Quincy St.
 Arlington, VA   22201
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.notis-l
Date:         Fri, 11 Sep 1992 08:15:51 CDT
From:         Wayne Mueller <WMUELLER@TRINITY.BITNET>
Subject:      Big News from Texas

Best wishes to Micheal and Leigh.  I like the idea of the blessed event
at BSR.  I'll bet Ameritech/NOTIS wished they could come with something
this neat.  This looks like a merger of MVS and VSE.  I wonder what you
get with that?
On the SAS update question.  I have always had to re-read the file being
updated before actually doing the put for update.  It seems like SAS gets
confused and lost with the original record being read.  I think you need
to read the item record, read the bib record, re-read the item record,
update the item record.

Wayne Mueller-TECH1
Trinity University-San Antonio
Phone: 512-736-8365
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.notis-l
Date:         Mon, 14 Sep 1992 14:25:34 EST
From:         Nancy Orth <LIBADM6@UCONNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: course reserve lists

Alan - please summarize for the List.  With the volume of our Reserve circulati
on (123,000) and the number of items on Reserve (16,000), it hardly seems worth
while bringing up NOTIS Reserve in its current mode.  I'm not sure we have much
 to gain to offset the labor intensive nature of the effort.

Nancy M. Orth                     BITNET: LIBADM6@UCONNVM
Head, Circulation/Reserve         FAX:    (203) 486-3593
Homer Babbidge Library            VOICE:  (203) 486-3990
University of Connecticut
Storrs, CT 06269-0005
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: NOTIS-L@TCSVM.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"NOTIS-L@TCSVM.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.notis-l
Date:         Thu, 10 Sep 1992 15:35:00 EST
From:         "W.C. DIVENS" <N93774@PITTVMS.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: CHAT-L: Big news from Texas

>        MICHAEL AND LEIGH TO MARRY IN NOVEMBER!


>News flash from Texas -- Michael Stephens of SMU and Leigh
>Williams of SFASU are engaged and will be married on November
>28.

So it will be Michael and Leigh of SFASMU!  Congratulations
guys.  I thought I detected a sense of reverence in Michael's
eyes as he held that Texas Longhorn trophy!  That can only come
from Texan Influence.


>The Bum Steer Roast, in addition to being its usual whale of
>a good time and kvetch-fest, will also serve as our
>engagement party.  We hope you'll all attend to wish us
>happiness.

Better rent the Expo Hall for this one....ain't NO WAY
we're all gonna fit in that wee room.

Way to go!  What an enhancement!  The most SIGnificant
announcement of the year.

Congrats....from the Rustbelt.

Bill
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: University of Texas at Arlington
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.notis-l
Date:         Mon, 14 Sep 1992 17:25:40 CDT
From:         Gina Gestautas <C231GNG@UTARLVM1.BITNET>
Subject:      Financial Obligations and Batch Feeds

The University of Texas at Arlington was successful in finally offloading
approximately $ 89,000 in past fines or charges from NOTIS.  Not all of
these transactions were able to be passed to our billing system because
of their age or other errors, but overall we had a very successful
experience and we would like to acknowledge the key part NOTISPRO played
in it.  With the Bill and Fine SAS programs available.. we were able to
cut our work time and also learn alot from other peoples effort.  Thanks
again to you all who answered questions regarding some of the fields and
also some of the methods needed to work with the patron and bill and fine
file.  Since some of our uncollected debts went back to 1988, some of our
patrons who had more current addresses in the university billing system
were quite surprised to be billed up to 4 years AFTER the original obligation!

I hope that you can help me with one remaining issue.

In the process of reviewing records that were updated, we found that because
of errors in the bill and fine records (mostly trying to correct a FORGIVE
that was in error).  It often was the case that the individual item showed
2 FORGIVEs thus not only cancelling the original fine, but subtracting the
original amount AGAIN (in the case of 2 FORGIVEs) to give a negative amount
equal to the original fine.  In the minds of the librarians that I have
talked to, this should not be allowed.  The overall affect is even scarier.
Because the online programs sum ALL the individual line items, if there are
any that are showing an incorrect negative amount, it will lower the overall
total due by that same amount.  Not only  losing the original amount due,
but SUBTRACTING the same amount from the rest of the outstanding balance.
When we use the bill and fine offload program, since the amount actually due
is GREATER than the patron owes field, this goes to a negative balance.

Is this something that is PRESENT in NOTIS and is simply ignored or just not
high enough in the priority list to fix?  How do other sites handle this?

Gina Gestautas                            C231GNG@UTARLVM1         Bitnet
University of Texas at Arlington          c231gng@utarlvm1.uta.edu Internet
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: NOTIS-L@TCSVM.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"NOTIS-L@TCSVM"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.notis-l
Date:         Fri, 11 Sep 1992 12:16:00 EST
From:         "GARY M. RAY" <GMR@PITTVMS.BITNET>
Subject:      Testing Bitnet

This is a test.  Please disregard.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU