MG>> One wonders where Sauer was when I typed that long post
 MG>> about psychologists not needing to be licensed. I have a

->> He probably fell on the floor laughing.
->> OTOH, you did not say psychologists did not *HAVE* to be licensed.
->> You said there is no licensing required in psychology.

 EC> Yeah, THERE'S a way out, Bob!  You can try to distinguish
 EC> between "have to" and "required!"  That will just slide
 EC> right by people!

 There's a way out, Earl. You can try to understand the
 difference between "there is no requirement for licensing",
 which means a requirement for licensing doesn't exist, and you
 don't have to be licensed, which means the requirement doesn't
 apply to you.

 For what Mimi was playing at, a requirement most certainly does
 exist. If she was really a psychologist.

 But I'm sure you can find another way to spin it.

BOB KLAHN bob.klahn{at}sev.org   http://home.toltbbs.com/bobklahn

 * Silver Xpress V4.5/P [Reg]
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5a