RICK UNEDITED - READERS PLEASE RESPOND!

Everything that follows is strictly the text sent over by Rick, including the selected quotes of mine that he chose. I will respond in a separate posting, but I would like to invite any readers of my blog to join in and respond to Rick, because after all, when he talks about "Kool-Aide," he's talking about any of you who resonate with what I am saying on my blog as the prospective drinkers of said toxic potion. So... here's Rick on "parenting, truth, dogmatism and Kool-Aid":

PL-"... I definitely see healthy anger and ass-kicking as part of my tool box when it comes to guiding people on their paths. My aggression isn't "displaced" - it's meant for the people I'm directing it at, and calling someone who's acting like a fool a "fool" isn't "attacking," it's making an accurate assessment.

For you and all of your readers, if your son or daughter was in my class and, I took them aside and called him/her "an insensitive jerk", " a fool", "stupid" or " an idiot" because they were acting as such, would you take that as good effective teaching or demand my resignation? Would you just tell your child, “Well if you were acting that way, then it is ok for the teacher to call you that.” Would you accept that as the teacher, I am just making an “accurate assessment"? I, of course would use other tools as PL does, but, in this example, I don’t feel that those would be as effective to get my point across. If so, then you agree with the methods by this blogger and I respect that you are not hypocritical even though I disagree with your thinking.

PL, if you see healthy anger and ass-kicking as effective ways to guide people on their paths, should we take your lead and do the same as parents? Would that put us in line with what good parenting should be? i.e. the “TRUTH”? Just because your patient/client is 30,40 or 50 years old doesn't mean that he/she won't feel the same as a 5,10 or 15 year old would when this approached is used. As I said before, I think there is a place for this. SOME clients or SOME children would respond well to getting their “ass kicked”. Others wouldn't. That is one of the many challenges of parenting; figuring out what style or "tool" to use with each child. It is simply not in some of use to use some tools but we can acheive the results by using other tools with which we are comfortable.

PL- "I'm not serving any Kool-Aide here, and I challenge you to identify what you think my "dogma" is."

I warned you about challenging me, I bat 1000. I will call it just a continuation of a discussion, lest no one feels as though they won or lost.

First we need to define dogma/dogmatic. "Characterized by or given to the expression of opinions very strongly or positively as IF they were facts." - Webster's

Now, here are some supporting examples:

1. Your entire take on the Democrats and Republicans and failure to accept their negative/positive similarities as Loff56 clearly pointed out. (They really are much more closely aligned than what is being portrayed. No one should be surprised by Obama's recent appointees. Politics as usual. There can be no other way as long as there are only two significant political parties)

2. Your take on parenting has so much to be desired. Yet you hail it as the one and only truth and then try to make us drink the Kool-Aid which is, because someone else writes an article about the same idea you stated, it becomes even “truer”. Sorry, ain’t happenin’.

I could list several articles that substantiate that marriage must be preserved or marriage can't be preserved. Palestinians are wrong, Israelis are wrong. The death penalty is right or the death penalty is wrong. Pro Choice is right or pro choice is wrong. etc. Just becasue I can substantiate with other people's opinion doesn't allow me to say, "See, I'm not the only one thinking of this, so it must be the Truth and Reality."

3. Providing justification for name calling and belittling all your patients without accepting that may have the adverse effect on some is another example.

4. Your take on several religions are so one-sided it doesn't allow for the good or bad to be presented (see #1). I taught World Religions and my 9th graders would have a field day with your assertions regarding Buddhism, Christianity and other religions etc.

The bottom line is, this blog reads as "my way or you are just stupid" and then “See, other people feel the same as me. See, I’m right again!”. You have written that. It absolutely wreaks of the dogma you challenged me to explain. Anyone can see that.

However, as previously written, if your intent is to elicit responses, continue your dogmatic ways. Then it becomes sport and it is fun. Just as it is to listen/read crazy conservatives or crazy liberals. They are dogmatic, but equally amusing. They certainly get people riled up because they do not always present the truth, but claim it as such.

Lest I be one sided, I would be remiss not to mention the several times you have relented on some of your “facts” only after they have been questioned on some of your very strong opinions. I wonder if you could articulate your initial opinions as you do when questioned. Your several responses to my posts usually are less dogmatic and certainly don’t have the same BS of your originals. I continue to read this blog because you do accept "other facts" even though it is after the fact. Here is where entertaining ends and learning begins. Hey, That’s Entertainment!

Keep the faith Brother!