On 10/4/18 11:32 AM, wrote:
On Thu, 4 Oct 2018 08:00:28 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote:


2. She is not a psychiatrist.

Not even a licensed psychologist in spite what she would have us
believe from her testimony.


And why would she have to be licensed? Is she working as a therapist?
And even if she were (she is not), she could work as one without a
license while seeking a license so long as she was working under the
supervision of a qualified licensed therapist. A professor or a
consultant can work as a psychologist without a license. Got it?

On 10/4/18 11:36 AM, wrote:
On Thu, 4 Oct 2018 09:54:13 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote:

No *reputable* mental health professional will offer an expert opinion
on someone's mental health without a serious, in-person evaluation, and
maybe more than one evaluation

So all of them that have lined up with a diagnosis on Trump are
disreputable. Good to know. (and from as highly an educated person as
yourself)


I'm not aware of any reputable mental health professionals who have
offered an expert opinion/diagnosis of Trump mental/emotional disorders
in the absence of a serious, in-person evaluation of him.

On 10/4/2018 11:46 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 10/4/18 11:32 AM, wrote:
On Thu, 4 Oct 2018 08:00:28 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote:


2. She is not a psychiatrist.

Not even a licensed psychologist in spite what she would have us
believe from her testimony.


And why would she have to be licensed? Is she working as a therapist?
And even if she were (she is not), she could work as one without a
license while seeking a license so long as she was working under the
supervision of a qualified licensed therapist. A professor or a
consultant can work as a psychologist without a license. Got it?


So can a carpenter or an electrician. So what?

On 10/4/18 11:46 AM, wrote:
On Thu, 4 Oct 2018 10:01:15 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


You're right. I stand corrected. Her PhD is in psychology, not
psychiatry, an even more "undefined" and immature science.


Our daughter's best friend in childhood is a psychologist (unlike Ford
actually licensed) with similar psychology credentials (phD etc). She
worked for years in the prison system. She is also a college professor
from time to time (and a real estate hustler). When you hear her talk
it is just a collection of Dr Phil platitudes and they seem to spend
more time coming up with names for disorders than actually doing
anything about them.


You're not qualified to offer up such an opinion.

On 10/4/2018 12:03 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 10/4/18 11:46 AM, wrote:
On Thu, 4 Oct 2018 10:01:15 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


You're right.Â* I stand corrected. Her PhD is in psychology, not
psychiatry, an even more "undefined" and immature science.


Our daughter's best friend in childhood is a psychologist (unlike Ford
actually licensed) with similar psychology credentials (phD etc). She
worked for years in the prison system. She is also a college professor
from time to time (and a real estate hustler). When you hear her talk
it is just a collection of Dr Phil platitudes and they seem to spend
more time coming up with names for disorders than actually doing
anything about them.


You're not qualified to offer up such an opinion.


What an elitist statement. He's as qualified as anyone to
present his opinion.

Typical progressive liberal mentality.

On 10/4/18 12:03 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/4/2018 11:46 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 10/4/18 11:32 AM, wrote:
On Thu, 4 Oct 2018 08:00:28 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote:


2. She is not a psychiatrist.

Not even a licensed psychologist in spite what she would have us
believe from her testimony.


And why would she have to be licensed? Is she working as a therapist?
And even if she were (she is not), she could work as one without a
license while seeking a license so long as she was working under the
supervision of a qualified licensed therapist. A professor or a
consultant can work as a psychologist without a license. Got it?


So can a carpenter or an electrician.Â*Â* So what?

Fretwell was making an issue of her being "not even licensed." Not even
licensed is not an issue if one isn't practicing therapy.

Keyser Soze Wrote in message:
On 10/4/18 9:43 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/4/2018 8:00 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 10/4/18 5:44 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/3/2018 8:41 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 3 Oct 2018 17:03:09 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 10/3/2018 4:31 PM, John H. wrote:
On Wed, 03 Oct 2018 11:17:29 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 3 Oct 2018 07:48:25 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 10/3/2018 6:52 AM, John H. wrote:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/chr...y-sounds-alarm



Eye-opening, eh Krause?

Note that the guy didn't request 'confidentiality' either.



If this guy's comments are truthful they really put a different
slant on
Ford's testimony before the senate committee.

In addition to his claim that Ford, (holding a PhD in Psychiatry)
provided counseling services to others on what a polygraph is
and how to
take them, he also debunked her claims of her "fear" of flying
and the
trauma induced requirement for two front doors as she described.

In her testimony she was specifically asked if she ever talked
to anyone
about taking a polygraph. She answered, "Never".

Hmmmmm....

There is also a story floating around that she used to live in a 500
sq/ft apartment with one door and her time line for the "2 door"
addition was wrong.
As an old teacher told us once "the difference between history and
fiction is fact".
It appears that when she was being coached on her testimony they
seemed to forget that.
Remind us again of that latin phrase Blumenthal used.
?Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus,?

That's in the letter Luddite posted.



The two door thing is because the person Ford bought the house from
had a marriage consoling business that Ford allowed the former owner
to continue to use. The second door was the entrance to the business.

My, my how stories change.


I feel bad for Ford but I have already said that. She is going to be
road kill before this is over and it was all unnecessary. She really
wanted Feinstein to keep her out of this.
She ends being as flawed as Kananaugh and the rest, like Swetnick are
basket cases.
This is a sorry affair from start to finish.
The reality is, we might actually want a justice who has done a few
things he is not proud of and understands his mistakes. Most of the
ones we have really respected had a checkered past and grew from it..



Ford's high school yearbook has been found, inspected and discussed at
length in the past couple of days. You won't hear much about it
on MSNBC or CNN but it describes a party time atmosphere with lots
of drinking in which Ford appears to have been a major player.

The thing that really causes me to question the validity of her
testimony is her testimony about her polygraph test. She talks
about "a machine with wires that were attached to my body" in a
little girl's voice as if she knew nothing about it and was somewhat
scared of it. Yet, there is sworn testimony that she, as a
psychiatrist, helped at least one person prepare for a polygraph
test, explaining the equipment, how it worked and how to respond
to questions.



1. None of that means she was previously hooked up to a polygraph and
examined. I could describe how to perform an appendectomy, but that
doesn't mean I could perform one.

2. She is not a psychiatrist.


1. It means she is familiar with the polygraph equipment, the
type of questions asked and how to best respond.

2. She may not be a psychiatrist but she has a PhD in psychiatry.
Close enough.

Her testimony was .... questionable ... and becoming more so as
people evaluate and weigh in. Professionals, including psychiatrists
have commented that based on her testimony, behavior and
overall demeanor she *could* be suffering from some mental health issues
unrelated to what she thinks happened 36 years ago involving Kavanough
(in her mind).

That's the thing about shrinks. You could line up 10 of them, have
them evaluate her testimony and you'd probably get 10 different
opinions.




She's not a psychiatrist and has no degrees in psychiatry. Her degrees
are in psychology and in epidemiology. She has no degrees in psychiatry.
Her specialty is in statistics.

No *reputable* mental health professional will offer an expert opinion
on someone's mental health without a serious, in-person evaluation, and
maybe more than one evaluation.

There's no doubt in my mind that Kavanaugh assaulted her. That he likely
will get away with it will be the result of the FBI coming back with
nothing specific as a result of its sketchy, White House-directed recent
inquiry. Kavanaugh by temperament is unsuitable for the bench. He
demonstrated that over and again during his recent testimony. Kavanaugh is a political hack with a bad temper. No wonder he is Trump's boy.

What, in your mind's eye, makes you more qualified than Joe the
plumber, to make such asertions. Stick to what you know best,
spelling.

--
x


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

On 10/4/18 12:10 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/4/2018 12:03 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 10/4/18 11:46 AM, wrote:
On Thu, 4 Oct 2018 10:01:15 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


You're right.Â* I stand corrected. Her PhD is in psychology, not
psychiatry, an even more "undefined" and immature science.


Our daughter's best friend in childhood is a psychologist (unlike Ford
actually licensed) with similar psychology credentials (phD etc). She
worked for years in the prison system. She is also a college professor
from time to time (and a real estate hustler). When you hear her talk
it is just a collection of Dr Phil platitudes and they seem to spend
more time coming up with names for disorders than actually doing
anything about them.


You're not qualified to offer up such an opinion.


What an elitist statement.Â* He's as qualified as anyone to
present his opinion.

Typical progressive liberal mentality.

He can offer any opinion he wishes, but it doesn't mean that opinion
carries any weight. Well, except to fellow Trumpsters.

Keyser Soze Wrote in message:
On 10/4/18 11:36 AM, wrote:
On Thu, 4 Oct 2018 09:54:13 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote:

No *reputable* mental health professional will offer an expert opinion
on someone's mental health without a serious, in-person evaluation, and
maybe more than one evaluation

So all of them that have lined up with a diagnosis on Trump are
disreputable. Good to know. (and from as highly an educated person as
yourself)


I'm not aware of any reputable mental health professionals who have
offered an expert opinion/diagnosis of Trump mental/emotional disorders
in the absence of a serious, in-person evaluation of him.




Your lack of awareness is the characteristic we get the biggest
kick out of.
--
x


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

Keyser Soze Wrote in message:
On 10/4/18 11:32 AM, wrote:
On Thu, 4 Oct 2018 08:00:28 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote:


2. She is not a psychiatrist.

Not even a licensed psychologist in spite what she would have us
believe from her testimony.


And why would she have to be licensed? Is she working as a therapist?
And even if she were (she is not), she could work as one without a
license while seeking a license so long as she was working under the
supervision of a qualified licensed therapist. A professor or a
consultant can work as a psychologist without a license. Got it?


Professional social worker. Not much reward for all the skoolin
she's had.
--
x


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/