Posted on 09/29/2018 2:46:35 AM PDT by TigerClaws
I don’t see the problem here—she is a professor of psychology and a research psychologist. These are academic roles—call her professor or doctor. Both are perfectly legit. She never offered further. I think there are better areas to focus on than this.
No, she didn't.
She opened her remarks saying she would not reiterate her list of documentation .. (I forget the exact words she used) .... but she did not list anything about herself.
FFFFord works for me.
Exculpatory has five syllables.
Actress. Btw last week in a CEU class, I called the teacher a psychologist. She corrected me because she could not legally accept the title.
She was authentic.
This is a nothing burger. A research psychologist is not a clinical psychologist. She does not see patients and needs no license. She does research, much like research chemists, research biologists, research pharmacologists, etc. I have at least one research psychologist among my multidisciplinary team; as researchers, psychologists contribute just as much as any other researcher.
2012 was also an election year.
My God, this Deep State/Swamp conspiracy stuff really does predate Trump.
They were prepping her in case they needed ammo in the event Mittens won.
Holy cr@p.
Is she a professor or an adjunct professor?
We have both in the family and, trust me, there’s one mother of a difference.
Especially if this wench is the latter passing herself off as the former.
Anyone in a licensed field knows to be very careful with terminology.
Try calling yourself an Engineer on the web. The State will send you a cease and desist letter if you are not a currently licensed engineer.
Same with calling yourself a Lawyer or a Doctor. Everyone in the field knows how they can refer to themselves properly.
While many feel that licensing boards are corrupt or play favorites, at least in most fields they perform a valid function to keep out charlatans and con men.
Speaking of “physicians” rather than “psychologists” it’s certainly a crime to practice medicine without a license.However,I wonder if it’s a crime to simply claim you’re a “physician” or “doctor” but don’t do anything that could be seen as practicing medicine.
I am pretty sure it is entirely legal to refer to oneself as “doctor” if you claim to be an expert in herbal medicine or gravity treatments or some such quackery. You would get into serious trouble if you tried to append “MD” to your name. We are pretty picky on that point.
T. MD.
I couldn’t remember the word she didn’t understand; thanks for remembering. OK, now she’s up to 5 syllables.
You sign yourself as "MD" which I take to mean that you're a graduate of a medical school.Assuming further that you're licensed to practice medicine somewhere in the US would you still be allowed to bill yourself as "MD" if your license were to expire,be suspended or be revoked? I obviously understand that you wouldn't be allowed to *practice* medicine in any such situation.
MD means you attended a Med School in the Allopathic tradition. DO is for Osteopaths. Naturopaths and homeopaths have no initials after their name (I am almost certain).
As much as I dislike the 51 year old, lying “14 yr old”, you are correct she has a PhD as a research psychologist and not as a practicing licensed psychologist. In other words doesn’t work with patients. But you can bet she has done enough research into PTSD and other issues to know exactly how to pretend. Some of her work here.
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Christine_Blasey
We really need to be careful what we say. The left hits us for any false rumors. This female (I assume) has been co author for many years before 2012.
It only takes writing one chapter on one topic to be co author though and is not a big deal. As much as she disgusts me, I think our being informed is important. Regardless how much she has done work wise she is a lying, liberal hag. Check this information.
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Christine_Blasey
But the entire article comes from Dangerous, https://www.dangerous.com/49836/records-show-dr-ford-is-not-a-licensed-psychologist-may-have-committed-perjury/ which is Milo’s site
“Aren’t we over-interpreting what she said? Did she not qualify that she was a research psychologist, and not a licensed psychologist, which is a distinction everyone understands?”
“Several searches on California’s licensing database revealed many of Ford’s colleagues in the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Studies at Stanford are not licensed psychologists in California, including the department chairman Laura Roberts, who identifies herself only as a professor. Of the unlicensed members of the faculty — which includes researchers, clinicians, professors, and fellows — none refer to themselves as a “psychologist” or “psychiatrist,” unless they also had a license issued in California.”
NONE refer to themselves as a “psychologist” or “psychiatrist,” unless they also had a license issued in California.
Prone to “EXAGGERATION” maybe????????
“Aren’t we over-interpreting what she said? Did she not qualify that she was a research psychologist, and not a licensed psychologist, which is a distinction everyone understands?”
EXCEPT, that’s not what THE LAW says.
“To look at her as some sort of expert in this area would be like asking a podiatrist about heart disease simply because he’s in the medical field. Still, the media ate it up.”
“the media ate it up.” Apparently so did you. (no offense)
Did you read the article?
There are so many who thought Ford’s testimony was epic! I took one look at “Garth”/”Harf” with her clown/comic look, little girl voice and simpleton answers with NOTHING to corroborate nor ANY solid, verifiable facts and I just LMAO (or have to cry). You got to be kidding me!!! This is not serious!!! Astonishingly, this is ripping the country apart. The other accusers and the “porn” lawyer are also certifiably insane.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.