On 10/4/18 12:24 PM, justan wrote:
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.



You literally transcend stupid.

On Thu, 4 Oct 2018 11:46:34 -0400, 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?

I never failed to "got it".
You need a professional license to mix drinks, cut hair or paint
fingernails but you say you can be a psychologist without one. That
just demonstrates how "unprofessional" that business is considered to
be by the government in some states. (Not Florida, they all need some
kind of license)

On Thu, 4 Oct 2018 11:49:38 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote:

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.


So these people are all "disreputable"? OK by me, We finally agree on
something.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/me-we/201708/petition-declaring-trump-mentally-ill-pushes-signers

On 10/4/18 12:33 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 4 Oct 2018 11:46:34 -0400, 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?

I never failed to "got it".
You need a professional license to mix drinks, cut hair or paint
fingernails but you say you can be a psychologist without one. That
just demonstrates how "unprofessional" that business is considered to
be by the government in some states. (Not Florida, they all need some
kind of license)



If you are not practicing as a therapist, you do not need a license.
Read that a few times until you understand it.

When my wife got her Master's in Florida, she had to work as a therapist
for a substantial period of time under the supervision of a licensed
therapist before she could even take the exam to become licensed. I seem
to recall that "period of time" back then was a year or so. The exam
itself was a killer back then, with a high failure rate. My wife got 90%
on her first try and was one of the few of several hundred tested that
day who passed. Then, she had to study for and pass a national exam to
become a licensed "clinical" therapist. After completing studies for her
doctorate and writing her doctoral dissertation and having it accepted,
she then had to take a three-day written exam and a day-long oral exam
defending her dissertation to get her Ph.D.

On 10/4/18 12:36 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 4 Oct 2018 11:49:38 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote:

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.


So these people are all "disreputable"? OK by me, We finally agree on
something.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/me-we/201708/petition-declaring-trump-mentally-ill-pushes-signers



Ahh, the duty to worn...interesting.

On Thu, 4 Oct 2018 12:03:05 -0400, "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. So what?

Carpenters and electricians still need to work under someone's license
and there are a number of states that are now requiring everyone
handling wire to become licensed electricians (not sure about other
trades). Kentucky is having a lot of trouble because of their law.

https://www.ecmweb.com/training/license-survive

If you are not a member you won't see the whole article but I can
paste it here if you are interested.

On Thu, 4 Oct 2018 12:03:15 -0400, 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. 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.

I know bull**** when I see it.

Keyser Soze wrote:
On 10/4/18 8:11 AM, justan wrote:
Keyser Soze Wrote in message:
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's good to know your limitations.
#2. She is a DINO just like yur missus.


You weren't able to get yourself into a free or nearly free community
college, ****-for-brains. You don't have the background, the education,
or the experience to comment on matters intellectual.


Then why did you listen to Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, etc.?

On Thu, 4 Oct 2018 12:15:38 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote:

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.

Your statement that psychologists can work without a license really
just depends on what state they are in.
In Florida I doubt you can be anything but office staff without some
kind of license. "Techs", "assistants" and other ancillary help still
need a license.
I suppose it is possible in backward states like Maryland for anyone
with a little college and watched Oprah for a season or two can hang
out a shingle and start dispensing advice.
https://tinyurl.com/ychkfd3b

On 10/4/18 1:15 PM, Bill wrote:
Keyser Soze wrote:
On 10/4/18 8:11 AM, justan wrote:
Keyser Soze Wrote in message:
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's good to know your limitations.
#2. She is a DINO just like yur missus.


You weren't able to get yourself into a free or nearly free community
college, ****-for-brains. You don't have the background, the education,
or the experience to comment on matters intellectual.


Then why did you listen to Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, etc.?


I never attended any of their speeches or lectures, or watched them on TV