Well, shame on me! And shame on the media. The media I read completely missed the humor and failed to present that to the readers. I really think that the majority of the flaming email you received was as a direct result.

After actually reading it, I've got to say that it was a superb job. So to pay some respect to the authors, I'll try to respond like one does to a formal journal article:

The authors are to be commended for their thoughtful and detailed analysis of Milne in the light of current state of the art mental health practice. The respondent especially appreciated the hyperbolic tone used to describe the various disorders so clearly absent from Milne's characters. The intent of the authors is clearly not to dissect the mental conditions of the subjects, but to throw into high relief, and parody, many of the practices typically applied in diagnosis and treatment. The respondent found the effect delightful.

The respondent also finds many of the other responses to be a bit full of themselves, and wonders if there isn't a statistical correlation between bombast and distance north or south of the Canada/US border. The respondent can attest personally to the negative correlation between reading the article itslelf and negative response. Perhaps this presents an opportunity for further study.

The respondent gleans these observations from the whole episode:

1. Sarcasm is an art-form easily misunderstood, especially by journalists.

2. There is no practical limit to the things that can be easily misunderstood, especially by journalists.

3. Canadian humor will generally fly clean over the head of the average American, especially jounalists'.

4. The authors patients and coleagues are lucky, but spouses and children may have difficulty understanding them.

My Dad is a retired Psychologist. His secret was to keep on laughing no matter what we did. (I'm sending him the article.)

Thank you for a delightful romp.