Hi Orla,
 
Quote Originally Posted by Orla View Post

Maarten, I have come across trolls before but don't think Bob is one based on looking at what he has said. As for qualifications, I think it is snobbery (sorry!) to argue that only someone with a degree or "qualification" can argue a point. By that logic Wessely's opinion would be superiour to many people here, who understand the issues but dno't have degrees, or relevant degrees. The issue should be the quality of the argument, not whether someone has a degree or not (I have 2 degrees myself so I am not arguing this point because of not having one).

Sometimes a persons qualification is important or relevant (if the argument is about scientific method or something), but sometimes it is less relevant.

Orla

Well... HE is the one calling out for "scienteefeec" discussion, "objective" and "without personal criticism".

That is just not on with OBVIOUS scam and con-games, and having the degree of M.Sc. in psychology I believe I am entitled and indeed morally and logically forced to ask what qualifications Bob has for "scienteefeec" discussion, "objective" and "without personal criticism".

Yea, maybe he IS a Professor of Psychology: I am just asking, and will be more "personal" and "sarcastic" if he is, I promiss you.

And no, it isn't snobbery here, in this matter: Bob's personal qualifications to speak about a form of psychotherapy are QUITE materially relevant.

And the brief of my point is simply this: No serious psychologist - educated at a fairly good university, one must add these days, alas - will take LP serious; all serious psychologists will warn against it if they know of it, for it is evidently a brainwashing technique that is very dangerous when applied to genuinely ill people.

That's why I started on this thread, besides being personally offended by Bob's being personally offended - it seemed to me - by the mere possibility that someone could question his - Bob's - qualification or bona fides for "scienteefeec" discussion of LP, protracted till Kingdom Come And Google Gathered All, presumably.

That: It's OBVIOUSLY brainwashing, plus your or Oerganix arguments are all that is required to completely dispose of it in science, in morality and in law, in principle.

There is no need to discuss this "scienteefeecally": It's just too much honor and exposure for this manner of BS, apart from the ill health of most on this forum.

LP is bad for you; you and Oerganix have very clearly said why; and anything else is just gilding BS as if it had any rational merit. It doesn't, and as long as Bob has not clarified his "scienteefeec" status to be able to discuss this, including resetting the parameters for rational discussion, I'll keep asking, if this "discussion" is protracted.

I mean: He is not talking about something I am ignorant about or ought to shut up about for lack of relevant knowledge. I simply asked him, more times than I wish to recall meanwhile, to indicate in objective terms what his qualifications are, as compared to mine or Gerwyn's.

Best wishes,

Maarten.

P.S. Mind you: As a psychologist I am VERY interested in psychologists who defend LP or call seriously for its "scienteefeec" discussion at length, by patients, most of whom, however qualified, are not psychologically degreed. I really want to learn their names, to hand these over to the local psychologists' association, for a Myhill-treatment, let's say.
So I am quite serious in flaunting my degree !