>
>As you can see, I revealed nothing that you hadn't already revealed to the
>list. Though your comment was cryptic, so was mine. I figured the reason
>you wouldn't like what I said was because it's so typical to assume that the
>male controls the female. In fact, this game is played the other way just
>as often.
that has nothing to do with what i typed or why i stepped in. if you had paid attention, i pointed out that i am unsure about whether i agree with carrol or you given some of my theoretical training. i have a problem with the ambiguity of the definition of depression, just as i have problem with the def. of alchoholism, codependency or even what a godamned drug is. nonetheless, i am willing to listen and, unfortunately, a large p[art of my decision to shut up is induced by the guilt trip politics that your ilk likes to play when it comes to this issue. that's why i suggested thomas szaz. at any rate, since you're rather obtuse, let me say that you missed one major thing: i basically told reese that he ought to do the same: sit back, listen and learn.
what you did, however, was turn it into a personal issue. you analyzed me and my behavior, and that of reese and other with your big picture book of psychoanalysis babble. you have no business hurling clinical terms around suggesting that anyone is a narcissist or a psychotic or anything of the sort. those terms are used, regularly, as flames and insults. you have to take responsibility for the fact that they are used as insults. i don't care what theoretical background you have that legitimates your use of those terms. you nonetheless have a responsibility for hurling them about in inapprorpriate and insulting ways. analyzing yourself and saying, "hey we're all suffering from some from of psychosis" is not an adequate defense either.
i have said this before, to you, to my *very * dear friend, ken, and to angela.
speaking of ken. as to your concern about personal relationships, criticisms and defense, dearest ted, i have personal relationships with a number of people on this list. get over it. the fact is, that means that sometimes i defend them and they defend me. but it works the other ways: sometimes we flame and criticize each other even so. for ex, i love ken, he's one of my best friends. but i criticize him and he criticizes me. ditto any number of other people. i have a "personal" relationship with joe noonan, too. that didn't stop him from criticizing me. if you cannot appreciate that kind of relationship, then i suggest you have a serious problem. if you think that such relationships a priori are unhealthy and induce group psychosis then you are painting ceramics with a fucking 5" brush from walmart
what was uncalled for was your personalizing the issue from the get go, when you offered up your coffee table picture book psychoanalysis. you continued to beat that drum even after i acknowledged what the scoop was and why you were dead wrong. i wasn't defending reese, i was criticizing him and telling him to knock it off and listen and learn. i responded by pointing out that you
/dev/null your ass into oblivion.
kelley