Comic Discussion > QUESTIONABLE CONTENT
WCDT Strips 3661-3665 (22nd to 26th January 2018)
TheEvilDog:
Considering that the information Evie has about Faye come from a secondhand source (Amanda) and likely to be a little out of date (due to Faye moving to Northampton), and considering she has no idea how messed up Bubbles' life was until recently, using this as an opportunity to force a revelation in Faye, well to me, it feels like a recipe for disaster.
Its kind of why I feel like Jeph is using this story to enter the idea of shipping and how out of control it can get. Instead of asking Faye if she could see Bubbles as a romantic partner, Evie is using skills she's only learned recently in an impromptu therapy session over dinner.
The thing is, is it her (or Amanda's) place to play the matchmaker? There's taking an interest, then there's trying to set up to people to fulfil your own gratification (I mean, look at Amanda). I think that's what I'm taking umbrage with.
Tova:
Well, yes. I don't think I need to reiterate my feelings about shippers. 8-)
Cornelius:
--- Quote from: Tova on 25 Jan 2018, 13:08 ---You need to set aside your readers' omniscience again.
--- End quote ---
And let's not forget the auctorial fallacy.
Anyway, tomorrow we'll probably see where this is going.
Is anyone else wondering how Bubbles is doing in the mean time? I'm not sure we left her in the best of places.
Is it cold in here?:
Here's another way to express what's disturbing me about Evie and raising uncertainties which may or may not get comforting answers.
Evie is asking questions which she, of all people, should know are the type of questions that lead to insights and revelations.
The Pugnacious Peach has not given permission to be made self-aware.
OldGoat:
--- Quote from: Cornelius on 25 Jan 2018, 13:02 ---There's a difference between practicing medicine, or law, or what have you, and using techniques you glean from your profession in your daily life. And, as such, if asking questions in this way is this specific, I know quite a few people who must be equally censured, despite having no formal training in psychology whatsoever.
As I noted before, without the context, outside the box, and any other character, would this be a problem?
--- End quote ---
If the other character intended to pursue a career as a licensed psychologist, yes indeed, it certainly could become one.
If you're applying for a tow operator's license and they discover that you've previously operated an unlicensed tow truck, you're going to face additional scrutiny before you're issued a license.
If you are seeking to be licensed as a massage therapist and your name has been associated with massage parlors specializing in "happy endings," you're probably in for a hassle.
If you are seeking to be licensed as a real estate agent and they have reason to believe you've been involved in selling swampland in Florida...
If you are trying to become licensed as a used car dealer and they have reason to believe you've curbsided a dozen flood cars from out of state over the past six months....
Yes. If you've come to the attention of licensing authorities any whiff of practicing prior to obtaining licensure may cause you problems. If it turns out to be unfounded so so insignificant that the authorities opt not to take action, the problem goes away. But the subject has still been on the hot seat for a while and will probably not remember the experience fondly.
And then, here in the US, there's HIPAA. For non-USAians, it's a federal law involving privacy of patient medical records, including psychotherapy (and much, much more, but that's the nutshell version). That's another potential wrinkle Evie may find difficult to iron out, especially if the other customer (the one who looks like Brun from the back) recognizes her and is a gossip. You're non-professional friend having an identical conversation has no obligations under HIPAA, but an aspiring clinician does.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version