On 2005-07-05 17:16:00, Anonymous wrote:
"Kat--- After reading your response to my long analysis of YOUR letter above, I have concluded that you are obviuosly far too sophisticated in the art of circular logic to argue with. You come to the same conclusions no matter what the discussion consists of. I give up!!! Either you can't read, or you just forget what you read once you start writing... because half of what you wrote is just a tangent and does not address my points at all. And you crack me up when you continually use your "logic" to conclude that no therapist would "violate ethical codes etcc....". M is now retired, does not have to follow some code that you speak of, particularly because you are not her patient, not to mention that part of the problem with therapy in the 21st century is CENSORSHIP! YOu use the very thing you clearly detest to shut HER down... a judgement on her rights because of her credentials that you are improperly educated to make. You would love to be able to reduce her and others who do not agree with you into labels that invalidate what they have to say. You defend yourself by manipulating the words and giving them meaning of your own creation. Clearly talking with you is a little game-- and you are a master of trickery. So I give in. Your logic may be flawed, but you run circles like a champ. Keep up the good work. Peace."
yes, all those laps have me exhausted. no seriously, why don't u simply point out where I'm flawed in what I say, I'm not closed to hearing what others have to say- just like i have said before, I stand against insults. i'm not sure what i'm creating, but apparently u do, so please tell me so that i can learn. you say i seem to have missed your points, so maybe I'm confused- please explain. I thought I covered them as best I could- perhaps I am wrong. It certainly wouldn't be the first time! talking is not a game to me, it's about learning and making a point that makes sense. if i don't make sense i sure would like to know what it is that doesn't make sense so i may revise. trickery is not my intent at all- it goes against everything i stand for. i'm sorry u feel that's what i'm all about.
Regarding m's ethics and the fact that b/c she's retired she shouldn't have to act responsibly/ethically, i don't know why that would be the case- I'm not sure how that consists of me 'labeling' and how that would in any way feel like censorship, I am merely a commentator among many. I don't see how I 'judged her rights' i would say her rights are equal to mine- we all have a right to speak, but i would think that as a therapist one would exhibit a certain level of professionalism that i did not see in her comments, and that's all. i may be wrong, but have yet to see any reason to think as such. if that makes what i say to sound like sham upon all then so be it, but i'm not clear on why that would be the case.
