From: James Rogers (jamesr@best.com)
Date: Wed Dec 27 2000 - 23:42:43 MST
On Mon, 25 Dec 2000, you wrote:
> > One of the primary indicators of insanity is that one never questions
> > their own sanity; questioning one's own sanity is considered a
> > definition of a sane individual and generally prevents the
> > possibility of a Section 8 discharge.
>
> Yes, sounds like the celebrated Catch-22.
Oddly enough, the determination of insanity must come from a person who
could be determined insane by the same criteria. The assumption of sanity
on the part of the adjudicator makes them suspect by the same criteria as
the person in question, and any question of insanity would make them
arguably disqualified.
Which all goes to suggest that perhaps the government should re-examine
the premise of their definition, not that it would be in their interest to
do so.
-James Rogers
jamesr@best.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:32:34 MST