From: David Hosten (email@example.com)
Date: 09/03/02-05:32:16 AM Z
I applaud your firm stance on profanity and 'personal disrespect'.
Would you also be so kind as to help abbreviate some of the discussions
on this list which lately have seemed to drift so far afield from the
major topic at hand?
I seem to recall some very rigorous discussion in the past where it
appeared some posters personally denigrated the holders of opposing
views and positions. I see that some of these people are still
participating prominent members of this list.
Perhaps its just my perception, but does being older and wiser, having
an arts degree, being an exhibited and respected photographer or being a
friend of the list maintainer hold others to a different degree of
I had my churlish episode and apologized immediately. Its seems as
though the 'rude' list member did not have the chance to do even that.
I know that Free Speech is not a guaranteed freedom in the Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but surely it is part of the American
I'm guessing that the poster was young, and probably angst ridden. I did
not unburden myself of a lot of that until later years, marriage and all
that growing up stuff caught up with me. If he was willing to discuss
his feelings with the poster he had issues with off-list, and apologize
to them/you/list, he may have something of Alternative Photographic
merit to discuss later.
The latest View Camera had the personal work of an interesting young man
with a hand-built large format camera which he used to help produce
I'd be very interested in what he had to say about his work,
Not At All Interested in His Opinions on the validity of someone elses
Art. Or if he wished to wax eloquent on Art Theory, since so many art
theorists can't agree, as Art is Not Science.
Note: I was former editor of International Free Press, and have always
been extremely sensitive to the curtailing of what I believe should be
universal freedoms. At least one of my ancestors was a slave in the West
Indies, making my sensitivity to Freedom of Speech especially personal.
That is my statement of bias.
BTW I am a lot closer to attaining the level of quality in my work that
I will feel confident enough to share with others via a future website.
Gordon J. Holtslander wrote:
>I WILL NOT tolerate profanity or any personal disrespect on this list.
>firstname.lastname@example.org has been unsusbscribed.
>On Mon, 2 Sep 2002, William Linne wrote:
>>What the **** does this have to do with alt-process?
>>Should be renamed alt-lonelyoldlady
>>----- Original Message -----
>>From: "Judy Seigel" <email@example.com>
>>Sent: Monday, September 02, 2002 2:12 PM
>>Subject: Re:Psychanalysis/ The Natural Order of Things
>>>On Sun, 1 Sep 2002 ARTHURWG@aol.com wrote:
>>>>Most contemporary psychiatric practice seems to center on which drug or
>>>>combination of drugs to use, or on various forms of behaviorism. Then
>>>>all the psychotherapists who have an MSW degree and have no idea what
>>>>they're doing and often do more harm than good. Arthur
>>>Since I was witness to my husband's training as psychiatric resident 35 or
>>>so years ago, and his descriptions of training given the psychiatric
>>>residents he teaches today, not to mention my own observations about
>>>vicissitudes of "mental health" biz in the interim, I am moved to comment:
>>>In the '60s, psychiatric residents were trained in "psychodynamics,"
>>>generally, or at the best hospitals, with a very psychoanalytical (read
>>>"Freudian") bent. Today, for many reasons, most of them having to do with
>>>medical economics (rise of the HMO, which only pays for a limited number
>>>of visits, quick effects of psychotropic medicine) but also remarkable
>>>advances in psychopharmacology, residential training has little
>>>psychodynamics, while, to be boarded, a psychiatrist has to pass not just
>>>psychopharmacology, but neurology, a field now also much enlarged.
>>>In the meantime however, the fields of social work and psychology have
>>>vastly improved their training in psychodynamics -- an MSW in social work,
>>>for instance (depending on where they trained) is, odds are, better
>>>equipped for "talking cure" than the MD psychiatrist, unless the MD has
>>>done a postgraduate course as some elect to do.
>>>But one who is contemplating this .... let's say fascinating & potentially
>>>lifesaving.... adventure MUST MUST MUST ask about the "therapist's"
>>>training. I've watched folks go into "therapy" without a clue about the
>>>"school," degree or training of the "therapist," simply taking it on faith
>>>because a friend "loved" them. And/or being embarrassed to ask. Would you
>>>buy a used car no questions asked? And if you don't feel free to
>>>question/challenge the therapist in such areas... finding out why not
>>>should be very productive.
>>>The first question, after training, "modality," etc., is have they
>>>themselves been through therapy, and of what nature. If a therapist has
>>>not at least done a walk-through, odds of malevolent counter-transference
>Gordon J. Holtslander Dept. of Biology
>firstname.lastname@example.org 112 Science Place
>http://duke.usask.ca/~holtsg University of Saskatchewan
>Tel (306) 966-4433 Saskatoon, Saskatchewan
>Fax (306) 966-4461 Canada S7N 5E2
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 10/01/02-03:47:07 PM Z CST