trishrhymes
Senior Member
- Messages
- 2,158
I hope Brendan Clarke reads all this before deciding whether to accept the kind invitation for him to join this forum and be lectured as to just how wrong he is.
I wonder if the invitation gave an indication of for how long he would be expected to sit on the metaphorical naughty step, and whether remission for good conduct was a possibility.
I would recommend that he makes contact with Jonathan, if members, of whom I would not have expected it, prefer and "like" abuse.
I don't understand why you consider polite disagreement to be unreasonable. I don't know whether these remarks were addressed to me or not. I hope I have directed no personal attack at Brendon Clark, or put him on the naughty step and wanting to 'lecture at' him.
I think his intention was good, but am concerned that he has apparently only seen the situation from the Wessely perspective. I tweeted him to suggest he might like to learn more of the other perspective by watching the OMF conference today, reading the JHP special issue on PACE and reading this thread.
I did this on the assumption that he was not a bad person, simply misinformed. I hope he is open minded and takes up my suggestions.
None of this could in any way be classed a unreasonable, I don't think.
Sadly, your comment reminds me of the Wessely school's characterisation of genuine critique of their work as harassment. Surely you want Brendan Clarke to be alerted to the fact that he has been given a partial and distorted picture by Wessely.