Re: terms

Errol Back-Cunningham (
2 Oct 1996 22:29:29 GMT

In <52uc5n$> (David Lloyd-Jones)
> Back-Cunningham) wrote:
>>>My argument with Errol is not over mental illness. I make no claim
>>>that "schizoaffective" has any real world correlative -- merely
>>>like "fairies" or "gnomes" the word has a precise meaning, and Errol
>>>was too lazy to look it up, preferring to confabulate.
>> A bald statement - too lazy - or merely trying to draw attention to?
>> It really was _not_ in my Oxford dictionary :)
>The fact that it is not in the small Oxford you own does not account
>for your ability to make up an incorrect definition out of thin air
>and deliver it to the net ex cathedra.

But isn't that what Bleuler and Kraepelin did too?
(Obviously without the net.) Isn't that what large chunks of modern
abnormal and clinical psychiatry and psychology have been doing for
years? Damn. There I was thinking anyone could get into the act.
Do you need a special handshake?