XPost: sci.psychology.misc, alt.support.depression   
   From: pseudo@intelligence.info   
      
   Charles wrote:   
   > On Thu, 02 Oct 2008 21:57:55 +0200, ProfQ    
   > wrote:   
   >   
   >> marcia wrote:   
   >>> On Oct 2, 9:31 am, ProfQ  wrote:   
   >>>> Hello, I guess you get thousands of e-mails, so I will be patient for a   
   >>>> response. A Counselling Psychologist (MSc Hons) says I am a   
   >>>> "pseudo-intellectual with delusions of grandeur". I have taken this as a   
   >>>> personal affront and an insult, but it has also made me think that   
   >>>> perhaps these academics have a modicum of intelligence beyond my own,   
   >>>> and he may be right. Personally, I would prefer to take the word of my   
   >>>> plumber or electrician over his, and disregard his malicious comments   
   >>>> with the contempt they deserve.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> I am not interested in counselling. I merely wanted to share this with   
   >>>> someone and obtain an objective response.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Thank you.   
   >>> What kind of objective response? I don't see any questions in your   
   >>> post.   
   >>>   
   >>> If you think the psychologist is FOS, that's your prerogative. Get a   
   >>> second opinion from another psychologist, psychiatrist, plumber or   
   >>> electrician if the issue is important to you. If not, remember the old   
   >>> adage, "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never   
   >>> hurt me."   
   >> Thank you Marcia for your kind response. I did not ask any questions,   
   >> you are correct, and since my writings do not appear in these groups, it   
   >> was certainly unfair of me to ask a group like this for an assessment of   
   >> a paragraph. I do feel that psychologist is FOS as he is my brother in   
   >> law and all my inlaws on that side of the family are FOS. It was unfair   
   >> of me to expect anyone to answer that, but I was hoping that someone may   
   >> have given me an academic response ... you see ... it's like this. If   
   >> one person says he's FOS and the other thinks he isn't, ... that type of   
   >> scenario.   
   >   
   >   
   > I'd say you are wrong for going to a councilor with whom you are in a   
   > family relationship.   
   >   
   > What goes on in the counseling session should stay there, and what   
   > goes on inside the family should stay there as well (if only)   
   >   
   > Mixing them is looking for trouble.  Find someone else, you might get   
   > an objective opinion.   
      
   I didn't. An e-mail I wrote to another b-i-l was recirculated to the   
   entire family without my knowledge or permission, the 1st b-i-l wrote in   
   response to it that my "pseudointellectualism is repugnant to the entire   
   family". If the second brother-in-law had not forwarded an e-mail   
   intended solely for him to the entire family none of this would have   
   happened. The second b-i-l whose words are quoted above also said I   
   should seek counselling for "delusions of grandeur".   
      
   That's why I think he's FOS.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)