Hi Nancy,

>Hey, man. You know I respect the hell out of you, but I'm not really sure why you think John's not asking a fair question?

Much as I respect all those involved, I defend Garrett's response. What Tamar does in her private practices is really her business.

>Tamar has established herself has a theory expert, without really posting relevent studies, BTW, and John as asked what her real world experience is. That seems fair to me.

It's fair to ask, but not fair to demand a response. Again, Tamar is under no obligation to respond.


>If I was testifying in court on some subject, I'd expect to be grilled about my experience.

But this is not court, Tamar is not on trial by anyone (except, maybe, by John), and she is under no obligation to respond.

John has put her in a lose-lose situation. If she responds, he'll attack her response, and if she doesn't, he'll claim it validates his position. Frankly, in Tamar's shoes, I wouldn't respond.

I'm surprised that you would lend credence to this sort of attack on a respected member of our community. You've been hanging with those asswipe losers at DevX for too long and it shows. Tamar has nothing to prove to us; if FPA can be improved, great. But not this way, not in this tone. We are eating our young here.