for March 1957, on page 16, offended you, I am truly sorry. Certainly no insult to the professi on of psychiatry was intended. I was being funny.

As a matter of fact, I was so shocked by your interpretation of what I had considered an innocuous but humorously challen. ing metaphor chosen to break the ice with a group as capable of appreciating the subtleties of clever wit and repartee, that I began to wonder if my unconscious had played a trick on me. Taken out of context, did that remark indicate that I felt that I had "become dirtied by contact with (my) clients"? Was it true, as you state, that such a person doesn't "belong in the field of attempting to be therapeutic to other human beings" since you "cannot conceive of a filthier insult to patients and humanity in general than the statement quoted"? (my quotes) So I immediately took steps which I consider essential for any psychiatrist to take when confronted by such a problem. I did some deep dredging into my unconscious on the couch. I had some long discussions on the subject with my professional friends whom I grust and admire. I had a thorough airing of the dirt with my private patients in group therapy. From all of these sources I gained a lot of understanding and I now wish to make my confession:

(1) Dr. Baker is guilty of using "trite wittici sms" such as an old saw that has been going the rounds for ye ars. It is so old it surely has whiskers by now. (No, Dr. Katzman, I did not author such a "rotten remark".)

(2) Dr. B. is guilty of having a sense of humor. In fact, she can get "drunk" on laughter quicker than any other way. She might have been temporarily "intoxicated" by the gay atmosphere at the annual Midwinter Banquet of ONE, Inc., in L.A. where the "unseemly" remark was made. Knowing that most people are a bit fearful of psychiatrists and that homophiles seem to have just cause for being suspicious, Dr. B., as the banquet speaker, opened her remarks by stating that she was NOT a Dr. Bergler (Edmund Bergler, M.D., psychiatrist and author of Homosexuality: Disease or Way of Life, Hill and Wang, Inc., N.Y., 1956) for she believes that homosexuals are human beings who are basically no different from heterosexuals except in thei r choice of a love object. Then, she made the "dirty" remark in order to put her audience at ease by releasing tense feelings through laughter. (And, honestly, Dr. K., they just loved it!)