Season 13: Speculation and Spoilers

[Sup wit dat]

On 6/24/2017 at 6:48 AM, nutty1 said:

Dean is getting a lot of love out there on SM. I wonder if the race for the next lead will be between him and Peter.
I know some will think Dean is too young (he is 26 now) but sometimes age is just a number.

Dean is gorgeous and would be a great lead.  The only thing I worry about is the ages of the girls who'd be on his show.  They'd have to be at least 21 for all the alcohol but the last thing I'd want to see a bunch of 21 year old party girls saying they're ready for marriage, etc., etc.

Edited June 27, 2017 by Sup wit dat

[uoflfan]

On 6/10/2017 at 10:50 AM, JenE4 said:

 

On 6/10/2017 at 9:32 AM, wings707 said:

Bryan has been on another reality show.   She has said, she does not like cocky men.   Now, is that because she has succumbed to a cocky guy in her past and she is trying to turn over a new leaf?  Or is she attracted to cocky and is not able to fight that?  

 

 

 

An interview with Lucas

 

OMG. I don't know what this Player show is, but it looks right up my alley! I can't believe I missed it!

 

Oh, those opening credits make me want to watch this so badly.  I wonder if it's online anywhere.  Hell, I'd pay per view it.

[dirtypop90]

Sooo they set up the "Rachel is not as into the black guys" comment, the week (well actually day for viewers) before  Rachel sends Kenny, Anthony, Josiah, and will home.  Based on spoilers, Anthony and josiah leave during the RC, Kenny during the 2-on-1, and will is sent home on his one-on-one.  Maybe there will be a TBC and will's date won't be until next week.  I'm not sure I'm ready for the sh*t storm that will occur even though she has no chemistry with any of these men.

Edited June 27, 2017 by dirtypop90

[limecoke]

A couple of deep thoughts from this episode:

1. Lee's hair looks stupid.

2. Bryan's cheek enhancements look stupid.

That is all.

[CindyBee]

Yeah its really hard to believe that she has a better "connection" with Adam and Matt than Will & Anthony.  I can't even remember her talking to Matt/Adam and we are already in Europe!!

Edited June 27, 2017 by CindyBee

[dirtypop90]

1 hour ago, CindyBee said:

Yeah its really hard to believe that she has a better "connection" with Adam and Matt than Will & Anthony.  I can't even remember her talking to Matt/Adam and we are already in Europe!!

I don't think it's hard to believe at all. Adam had a spicy deleted scene with Rachel that was cut. And Matt and Rachel look quite cozy and comfortable together in the preview for the season. It's possible they're not showing her relationships with this men so her F6 will be a shock and people can have this conversation. These men are also older than Will and Anthony which could be another reason she prefers them. Rachel has no connection with Will and Anthony based on what we've seen; the show hasn't shown us enough to be able to tell if she has anything with Adam and Matt. 

[In2You]

11 hours ago, Sup wit dat said:

Dean is gorgeous and would be a great lead.  The only thing I worry about is the ages of the girls who'd be on his show.  They'd have to be at least 21 for all the alcohol but the last thing I'd want to see a bunch of 21 year old party girls saying they're ready for marriage, etc., etc.

Dean himself said he's not a believer in marriage

[1992austenlover]

Bryan confuses me so I don't blame Rachel one bit for being skeptical of him or his intentions. It's weird; I honestly can't tell sometimes if he's a more smooth-talking, sexually assertive Nick (a guy who I think is very genuine and has a good heart but who is easily misunderstood because of the way that he goes about things sometimes) or a more convincing Josh Murray (a guy who tries to project this perception of being this amazing catch when in reality he's just an egomaniac with an obvious chip on his shoulder). It's hard to say at this point...I mean, for Rachel's sake I certainly hope that it's the former but I will say that I can't help but cringe every time that Bryan maintains that their situation/relationship is a "fairytale". Personally, I see that as a red flag....but again, I hope I'm wrong. 

[truthaboutluv]

11 minutes ago, 1992austenlover said:

Bryan confuses me so I don't blame Rachel one bit for being skeptical of him or his intentions. It's weird; I honestly can't tell sometimes if he's a more smooth-talking, sexually assertive Nick (a guy who I think is very genuine and has a good heart but who is easily misunderstood because of the way that he goes about things sometimes) or a more convincing Josh Murray (a guy who tries to project this perception of being this amazing catch when in reality he's just an egomaniac with an obvious chip on his shoulder). It's hard to say at this point...I mean, for Rachel's sake I certainly hope that it's the former but I will say that I can't help but cringe every time that Bryan maintains that their situation/relationship is a "fairytale". Personally, I see that as a red flag....but again, I hope I'm wrong. 

I don't see either of these comparisons with regard to Bryan, in my opinion. I totally see smooth-talking and sexually assertive with him but I wouldn't really describe Nick that way. I am always amused at the image that developed of Nick over time because it just did not connect with the guy I watched on Andi or Kaitlyn's season, in my opinion. And as for the Josh comparison, I don't see any suggestion of Bryan having a huge chip on his shoulder or even being an egomaniac to be honest.

Honestly, I've found Bryan to seem like a very chill and laid back person. I really think he's just kind of cheesy when it comes to romance and that's what many are reading as smarm. I don't know that I believe he and Rachel would last, but how many of the couples do anyway. But I really do think he's probably just a chill, decent guy who goes in on some really cheesy lines when pursuing a woman. Frankly, I find Peter more confusing and red flags than Bryan because something just seems off or not the full picture with him. 

Edited June 28, 2017 by truthaboutluv

[1992austenlover]

6 minutes ago, truthaboutluv said:

I don't see either of these comparisons with regard to Bryan, in my opinion. I totally see smooth-talking and sexually assertive with him but I wouldn't really describe Nick that way. I am always amused at the image that developed of Nick over time because it just did not connect with the guy I watched on Andi or Kaitlyn's season, in my opinion. And as for the Josh comparison, I don't see any suggestion of Bryan having a huge chip on his shoulder or even being an egomaniac to be honest.

Honestly, I've found Bryan to seem like a very chill and laid back person. I really think he's just kind of cheesy when it comes to romance and that's what many are reading as smarm. I don't know that I believe he and Rachel would last, but how many of the couples do anyway. But I really do think he's probably just a chill, decent guy who goes in on some really cheesy lines when pursuing a woman. Frankly, I find Peter more confusing and red flags than Bryan because something just seems off or not the full picture with him. 

Yeah, I don't see Nick as a huge smooth-talker either...which is why I said that Bryan is a more smooth-talking, sexually assertive version of Nick. I think what I meant by that comparison is that I feel like Nick is generally misunderstood and I hope that Brian is in a similar situation as Nick in the sense that, like Nick, he actually is a genuine person  but is being labeled as smarmy because of the way that he comes across sometimes in his interactions with Rachel. As for the Josh Murray comparison, I referred to Bryan as a potentially "more convincing" Josh Murray because sometimes I get the sense that Bryan is a little too polished/cliched when he professes his feelings for Rachel...and it doesn't help that their narrative kind of reminds me of Andi and Josh when Andi also sort of questioned at times if Josh was too good to be true. The difference is that I never believed that Josh was sincere....so I think that if Bryan is like Josh then he's way more convincing because I do think that Bryan comes across as fairly genuine and sincere even though I also get some serious smooth-talking vibes from him. 

But to be clear, I actually don't have a problem with Bryan in the sense that I at least believe that he does really like Rachel and that his intentions are good. I guess I'm trying to figure out if I see can them working out in the long run based on my understanding of his character...which is clearly a little murky given that I don't feel like I know enough about Bryan to be able make a strong case for him either way. Overall, I like Bryan...but he also confuses the hell out of me which naturally makes me a little wary of him in the long-run post-show. But I'm hoping for the best. :) 

[chocolatine]

59 minutes ago, 1992austenlover said:

he actually is a genuine person

A genuine person would not misrepresent themselves as a physician.

[Wings]

4 hours ago, chocolatine said:

A genuine person would not misrepresent themselves as a physician.

That is accepted as the job title in the state of FL.  Many don't use it but it is legit.  To me, I say, of course this arrogant man would go for that! 

Edited June 29, 2017 by wings707

[waving feather]

I don't see Josh M. in Bryan at all. Like zero percent. I don't remember Josh being as smooth as Bryan. And Josh was already showing his rageholic ways when he was on Andi's season. Even while they were dating on the show, I noticed he didn't like it when she contradicts him. I remember he once insisted he could play tennis better than her. There was already tension in their conversations, if I recalled correctly.

My impression of Bryan is he is quite laid back and gentle guy. He is only effusive when it comes to Rachel. I believe he meant his words on the show. But who knows if that would fade or not if they continued their relationship in the real world? Time will only tell. The odds are not in their favor but they can try.

[Bugs Meany]

12 hours ago, wings707 said:

That is accepted as the job title in the state of FL.  Many don't use it but it is legit.  To me, I say, of course this arrogant man would go for that! 

It's not legit. Here's the test: If someone went unconscious in the air and the flight attendant yelled "Is there a doctor on the plane?" Bryan would not be who they had in mind.

[chocolatine]

8 minutes ago, Bugs Meany said:

It's not legit. Here's the test: If someone went unconscious in the air and the flight attendant yelled "Is there a doctor on the plane?" Bryan would not be who they had in mind.

Another test is whether or not the person who calls themselves a physician has an MD.

[DEL901]

I can't figure out who's going to be the next bachelor.  Are we allowed to talk about Bachelor in Paradise spoilers because I think if someone is on BiP, they've probably disqualified themselves from being the Bachelor.  But what kind of pool do we have?  I really like Will and Anthony but they went out too early.  Besides, what are the chances TPTB would have two black leads in a row?  Adam's forgettable.  Likewise Matt.  Like Alex but also probably went out too soon.  Eric's too needy.  Dean's kind of young.  Peter?  He started strong but now I'm doubting he could carry a season.

[dirtypop90]

Peter would bring the women though, contestants and viewers. The other guys, except maybe dean, don't have close to his level of popularity, going by social media. It really is peter's job to turn down IMO. 

[OnceSane]

4 hours ago, DEL901 said:

Are we allowed to talk about Bachelor in Paradise spoilers because I think if someone is on BiP, they've probably disqualified themselves from being the Bachelor.

Nope, spoilers for BiP need to stay in the BiP forum.  

[peachmangosteen]

On 6/27/2017 at 10:24 PM, In2You said:

Dean himself said he's not a believer in marriage

I love him even more now lol!

[Irlandesa]

6 hours ago, DEL901 said:

 I think if someone is on BiP, they've probably disqualified themselves from being the Bachelor.  

Didn't Nick do BiP before doing The Bachelor?  Or are you just referring to those in this special season of BiP?

[truthaboutluv]

8 minutes ago, Irlandesa said:

Didn't Nick do BiP before doing The Bachelor?  Or are you just referring to those in this special season of BiP?

Yes but that's the only time that's happened, with someone doing BIP and then being made the lead. And Nick kind of had a unique history with the whole dumped twice at Final 2.

Anything is possible of course but it does seem like it's almost a given that it will be Peter if he is not Final 1. Where it will get interesting is if it turns out that he is Final 1. 

[Bugs Meany]

30 minutes ago, Irlandesa said:

Didn't Nick do BiP before doing The Bachelor?  Or are you just referring to those in this special season of BiP?

 

20 minutes ago, truthaboutluv said:

Yes but that's the only time that's happened, with someone doing BIP and then being made the lead. And Nick kind of had a unique history with the whole dumped twice at Final 2.

And Nick had a year off in between. If Dean becomes the Bachelor, he will have been on three consecutive seasons.

[yorklee2]

Boy am I late to the party! I was having a hard time trying to figure out the dynamic between Rachel and Peter. Since I don't usually read speculations and spoilers (a quick pick before the season starts) I just found out RS had changed his F1 prediction. I kept thinking since we're in this stage of the season that Peter wasn't progressing enough to be the F1. I was puzzled so I decided to check S&S to see what people were saying and now I know why it wasn't making sense.

I do have to wonder, as others have stated, if RS is 100% accurate since he didn't seem quite as confident in his announcement of the change. I agree with others it makes the rest of the season more interesting when you can have that little bit of wondering if he could be wrong. Does make you wonder if ABC is messing with him. 

[leighdear]

People have speculated that ABC is "messing" with Reality Steve for the last THIRTEEN seasons, plus 3 Bachelor Pads, and 3 seasons of Bachelor in Paradise and they NEVER have.  Not once. 

They don't even acknowledge his existence.  I really think It's ludicrous to think a multinational entertainment conglomerate like ABC/Disney would waste time and huge resources to mess with a Texas blogger.  I mean, seriously?  

I think If anything, Steve gets people to tune in.  I know that if I did NOT have his spoilers to read every week, I would have stopped watching this show after Ashley's season.  I think It's hilarious good fun to be spoiled & know who and what to watch for.  

He's the ONLY person to do what he does.  Believe him or don't, he's got a great track record.  No, not perfect, but better than anybody else.  

I can't wait to see Dean on my screen, no matter where he is.  This season, BIP or wherever.  He's just too adorable.   But do we know for sure he's going to BIP?  I know he wasn't on Steve's original cast list, and I don't remember seeing him mentioned anywhere else.  Is there a link to a story confirming him going to Mexico?

Edited July 1, 2017 by leighdear

[truthaboutluv]

47 minutes ago, leighdear said:

I can't wait to see Dean on my screen, no matter where he is.  This season, BIP or wherever.  He's just too adorable.   But do we know for sure he's going to BIP?  I know he wasn't on Steve's original cast list, and I don't remember seeing him mentioned anywhere else.  Is there a link to a story confirming him going to Mexico?

Edited 42 minutes ago by leighdear.

Reality Steve himself was the one to spoil Dean on BIP and said he and Kristina went on a date and hit it off.

[waving feather]

1 hour ago, leighdear said:

I think If anything, Steve gets people to tune in.  I know that if I did NOT have his spoilers to read every week, I would have stopped watching this show after Ashley's season.  I think It's hilarious good fun to be spoiled & know who and what to watch for.  

Same. I wouldn't watch this show without spoilers, because it is too tedious. At least with spoilers, I know who to watch out for and who to skip (TBH, I skip the one-on-one dates of any guy not in top 4, except for Jack because that was a hilarious train-wreck). I don't need to know exactly who the final pick is, but at least I want to know who the final four men/ women are. If not, I would lose interest quickly!

RS is actually giving the show publicity, even before the season airs, with his "real-time" spoilers.

[truthaboutluv]

YMMV but this show was a huge hit before Reality Steve and I'm sure it'll be just fine without him. Especially now that social media exists that the show clearly doesn't have a handle on, in terms of making sure contestants give nothing away. But I'm sure RS himself believes that he is so important to this show. Funny enough I'd say he needs the show and all the famewhores because how else would he make a living.

Edited July 2, 2017 by truthaboutluv

[waving feather]

1 hour ago, truthaboutluv said:

YMMV but this show was a huge hit before Reality Steve and I'm sure it'll be just fine without him. Especially now that social media exists that the show clearly doesn't have a handle on, in terms of making sure contestants give nothing away. But I'm sure RS himself believes that he is so important to this show. Funny enough I'd say he needs the show and all the famewhores because how else would he make a living.

RS definitely needs the show, it's his bread and butter. The show doesn't need him, but he certainly doesn't hurt it and help it in some way for the rabid online fans.

[CindyBee]

I think RS knows that he needs to diversify his online presence if he's going to survive the eventual ending of the franchise--that's why he's started his Sticher podcast with Sharlene and why he wants to bring in non Bachelor people onto his regular podcast.

FWIW, Peter is home in Wisconsin this weekend and Bryan hasn't been on social media the past few days so that's a clue to final 1 being Bryan, IMHO as the couple usually spends the July 4th weekend together.

It will be interesting to see what happens with Peter in Spain--does Rachel get to dump him early like alot of other bachelorettes have done with their final 2 or does he come to the FRC or does he leave on his own?!

[Canada]

On ‎2017‎-‎06‎-‎29 at 6:04 AM, Bugs Meany said:

It's not legit. Here's the test: If someone went unconscious in the air and the flight attendant yelled "Is there a doctor on the plane?" Bryan would not be who they had in mind.

Agreed.  I work with a pharmacist, who has his PhD, who calls himself a doctor.  It's very confusing for patients, as they think he's a medical doctor, and it really annoys the hell out of me.  I think he likes misleading people and he never corrects people when they assume he's a medical doctor.  But legally he's allowed to do it.  So annoying.

[McManda]

2 hours ago, Canada said:

Agreed.  I work with a pharmacist, who has his PhD, who calls himself a doctor.  It's very confusing for patients, as they think he's a medical doctor, and it really annoys the hell out of me.  I think he likes misleading people and he never corrects people when they assume he's a medical doctor.  But legally he's allowed to do it.  So annoying.

Hold on, I don't know about Bryan and chiropractry (is that the word I'm looking for?), but imo your pharmacist isn't all that out of line. He's not trained for years as a diagnostician like a medical doctor, but he has similar training to be able to recognize how the body should work and can identify when it's not. It's also likely that he's learned about the more common ailments - either at school or on the job - to the point where he can identify problems and issues. He'll defer diagnosis to a doctor, because a doctor has more tools and resources available to him to confirm a diagnosis, but that doesn't necessarily mean he doesn't know.

You say you work with a pharmacist, so you already probably know, but there's a push to give pharmacists prescribing rights, just like a MD. I think it's ... Oregon? ... that lets women use their pharmacist as a primary source of birth control, meaning they don't have to see a medical doctor as often. And you should also recognize that many, many people use pharmacists as a source of free medical advice because they're quick and accessible.

So no, the pharmacist you work with isn't going to do surgery. He didn't spend 7+ years in school (though he probably got close, pharmacy school is 4 years, then a lot of people choose to do a 1 or 2 year residency). But he's more of a medical doctor than someone that has a PhD in literature or a JD - both of which also hold the title of "doctor".

My point is not to make an argument that a pharmacist is more important than a doctor. I think they're both important and should work together to create optimal and ideal healthcare. But in the end, both are doctors and both deal with health and both have earned the distinction of being called doctor in the way general society uses it (as in, related to medicine).

I could almost make the same argument for Bryan, except I have no idea what kind of schooling and training goes along with becoming a licensed chiropractor.

[Canada]

33 minutes ago, McManda said:

Hold on, I don't know about Bryan and chiropractry (is that the word I'm looking for?), but imo your pharmacist isn't all that out of line. He's not trained for years as a diagnostician like a medical doctor, but he has similar training to be able to recognize how the body should work and can identify when it's not. It's also likely that he's learned about the more common ailments - either at school or on the job - to the point where he can identify problems and issues. He'll defer diagnosis to a doctor, because a doctor has more tools and resources available to him to confirm a diagnosis, but that doesn't necessarily mean he doesn't know.

You say you work with a pharmacist, so you already probably know, but there's a push to give pharmacists prescribing rights, just like a MD. I think it's ... Oregon? ... that lets women use their pharmacist as a primary source of birth control, meaning they don't have to see a medical doctor as often. And you should also recognize that many, many people use pharmacists as a source of free medical advice because they're quick and accessible.

So no, the pharmacist you work with isn't going to do surgery. He didn't spend 7+ years in school (though he probably got close, pharmacy school is 4 years, then a lot of people choose to do a 1 or 2 year residency). But he's more of a medical doctor than someone that has a PhD in literature or a JD - both of which also hold the title of "doctor".

My point is not to make an argument that a pharmacist is more important than a doctor. I think they're both important and should work together to create optimal and ideal healthcare. But in the end, both are doctors and both deal with health and both have earned the distinction of being called doctor in the way general society uses it (as in, related to medicine).

I could almost make the same argument for Bryan, except I have no idea what kind of schooling and training goes along with becoming a licensed chiropractor.

My point is that there are expectations on the part of the average layperson when they hear someone calling themselves a doctor.  Yes, there are other people with some form of training who legally can call themselves doctors.  But when you're speaking to the average person on the street, especially in a medical setting, they have a certain expectation when they hear the title of doctor.  The problem I have is with people who use the title with patients, patients who make incorrect assumptions, and don't clarify what their role is.  They must be aware that people are going to confuse them with medical doctors and it's deceptive on their part not to clarify what their real job title is.  Pharmacists are not medical doctors, they're not even close, and people should not be using them as such.  I've heard some very iffy information being given out by pharmacists, to people who don't know any better.

Edited July 2, 2017 by Canada
Spelling is important

[McManda]

In a medical setting you should know who you're dealing worth and adjust expectations accordingly. It's unlikely your patients come to the pharmacy expecting to talk with a medical doctor. It's more likely they're looking for a second opinion out a place to start, not a diagnosis. Any decent pharmacist would give an opinion and follow it with "but I'd check with a doctor to be sure" or some such line. 

19 minutes ago, Canada said:

They must be aware that people are doing to confuse them with medical doctors and it's deceptive on their part not to clarify what their real job title is.  Pharmacists are not medical doctors, they're not even close, and people should not be using them as such.

It's unlikely the pharmacist you work with is intentionally trying to confuse patients, unless he's on a giant ego trip.

And to be honest, I'd trust my pharmacist with my medication management much more than my doctor. My doctor can diagnose and prescribe, but if my pharmacist mentions potential issues with the easy my doctor has decided to treat my diagnosis you can bet I'm bringing that up with my doctor. Or if how I'm being treated isn't working, my pharmacist would be the first person I'd ask for suggestions on alternate therapy.

This discussion makes me wonder in what sort of capacity you work with pharmacy. It's healthcare, just like physicians, and it's definitely more than just counting tablets and deferring to medical doctors, though it seems like you're implying otherwise.

25 minutes ago, Canada said:

I've heard some very iffy information being given out by pharmacists, to people who don't know any better.

Same could be said of physicians. It's not the title in this case, it's the experience and knowledge.

[Irlandesa]

32 minutes ago, Canada said:

My point is that there are expectations on the part of the average layperson when they hear someone calling themselves a doctor. 

Quite possibly but that's where professional ethics come into play where the practitioner, whether it be a pharmacist, chiropractor, surgeon, acupuncturist, person with a PhD and even your typical MD, work within the bounds of their training and scope of practice.

In an airplane scenario, you'd want someone who can handle emergency situations but even a doctor with extensive training will be limited in what they can diagnose/treat on a plane.

Edited July 2, 2017 by Irlandesa

[call me ishmael]

The appropriate use of "doctor" is highly contextual.  In an educational setting the default would be a PhD and that would carry more authority than an MD.  In fact, until well into the 20c there was a real debate over whether medical schools should be allowed into universities or whether they were going to bring down the universities standing (in part because so many of them were pretty poor).

I think the chiropractor vs. MD business is a bit different though.  As 2 and a half men milked in so many ways.

[JenMcSnark]

Didn't he refer to himself as a "chiropractic physician"?  I don't remember but I think that's what I read and, IMO, that is completely different from someone with a doctorate (PhD) calling themselves doctor (although, yes, it can be very misleading and I feel they have a responsibility to make it clear that they are not a medical doctor if someone assumes they are). 

Per Merriam Webster:

Definition of physician

1:  a person skilled in the art of healing; specifically :  one educated, clinically experienced, and licensed to practice medicine as usually distinguished from surgery

2:  one exerting a remedial or salutary influence

So to me, calling oneself a "chiropractic physician" is deliberately misleading and wrong.  And probably means you have a tiny penis if you do so. YMMV.

[chocolatine]

2 hours ago, JenMcSnark said:

Didn't he refer to himself as a "chiropractic physician"?  I don't remember but I think that's what I read and, IMO, that is completely different from someone with a doctorate (PhD) calling themselves doctor (although, yes, it can be very misleading and I feel they have a responsibility to make it clear that they are not a medical doctor if someone assumes they are). 

Exactly, and that's why I have a much bigger problem with non-physicians calling themselves physicians than I do with doctorate degree holders calling themselves doctors.

Bryan actually refers to himself as both a doctor and a physician on his LinkedIn profile. It looks like he's had a total five years of post-secondary education and he's not saying what degree(s) he graduated with - seems highly unlikely that he would have earned an undergraduate plus a doctorate degree of any kind in that amount of time - so he's lying on both counts.

He's also apparently involved in a pyramid scheme that peddles "detox, weight loss, energy, sexual performance" products. That guy is a dangerous quack; I wouldn't trust anything he says.

Edited July 5, 2017 by chocolatine

[McManda]

3 hours ago, JenMcSnark said:

So to me, calling oneself a "chiropractic physician" is deliberately misleading and wrong.

I'd disagree, only insomuch as the designation "chiropractic physician" tells you exactly what he does. Others don't call themselves "dermalogic physicians" or "podiatric physicians" or whatever else nonsense adjective we can qualify physician with. "Chiropractic physician" lets you form your own opinion of his profession from the get go based on how you feel about chiropractors being doctors.

[Bugs Meany]

6 hours ago, McManda said:

I'd disagree, only insomuch as the designation "chiropractic physician" tells you exactly what he does. Others don't call themselves "dermalogic physicians" or "podiatric physicians" or whatever else nonsense adjective we can qualify physician with.

Dermatologists are real doctors (MDs).

Edited July 5, 2017 by Bugs Meany

[McManda]

7 hours ago, Bugs Meany said:

Dermatologists are real doctors (MDs).

I didn't say they weren't. But even MDs have a scope of practice. You wouldn't (or shouldn't) be asking a dermatologist for help managing your heart arrhythmia.

Same kind of deal for Bryan being a chiropractor.

[chocolatine]

17 minutes ago, McManda said:

I didn't say they weren't. But even MDs have a scope of practice. You wouldn't (or shouldn't) be asking a dermatologist for help managing your heart arrhythmia.

Same kind of deal for Bryan being a chiropractor.

Except a dermatologist went to medical school and Bryan didn't.

[fib]

1 hour ago, McManda said:

I didn't say they weren't. But even MDs have a scope of practice. You wouldn't (or shouldn't) be asking a dermatologist for help managing your heart arrhythmia.

Same kind of deal for Bryan being a chiropractor.

Except a dermatologist is a real doctor who knows the basics of heart arrhythmia, and should be able to tell you: 1) go to a specialist or 2) stop drinking so much caffeine. They are specialists.  Ie, same training as your gp+years of specialisation.  In contrast, Chiropractors are not mds.  They do have specialized training, but not built on the same base as the rest of the medical community.   

[call me ishmael]

17 hours ago, chocolatine said:

Exactly, and that's why I have a much bigger problem with non-physicians calling themselves physicians than I do with doctorate degree holders calling themselves doctors.

Especially since those with PH.D's are doctors.  So there can't be a problem.  And frankly i have never known a Ph.D (and i know tons of them) who would imply that they were doctors of medicine anymore than that they were doctors of law.

[Irlandesa]

52 minutes ago, fib said:

Except a dermatologist is a real doctor who knows the basics of heart arrhythmia, and should be able to tell you: 1) go to a specialist or 2) stop drinking so much caffeine. They are specialists.  Ie, same training as your gp+years of specialisation.  In contrast, Chiropractors are not mds.  They do have specialized training, but not built on the same base as the rest of the medical community.   

I think @McManda's point is that you're not going to go to a dermatologist physician if you suspect you have a heart arrhythmia any more than you'd go to a chiropractor.  And both would tell you it's outside of their scope of practice and to see a specialist and/or regular doctor. Whether or not they should use that phrase or not is one debate that I'm ambivalent on, although I'd bet money it's related to insurance.   But as for its use being deceptive, I don't think so since chiropractor is right there in the title.

I do find it interesting that Bryan leaves out which Chiropractic school he attended since the U of FL does not have one.  Those 5 years are his undergrad.  Chiro school would be an additional 3.

[chocolatine]

7 minutes ago, Irlandesa said:

But as for its use being deceptive, I don't think so since chiropractor is right there in the title.

It's the use of the word "physician" that's deceptive. You can't just append it to any job title, otherwise I would call myself a "software engineering physician".

10 minutes ago, Irlandesa said:

I do find it interesting that Bryan leaves out which Chiropractic school he attended since the U of FL does not have one.  Those 5 years are his undergrad.  Chiro school would be an additional 3.

Which makes me question whether he's even a fully credentialed chiropractor.

[waving feather]

35 minutes ago, chocolatine said:

It's the use of the word "physician" that's deceptive. You can't just append it to any job title, otherwise I would call myself a "software engineering physician".

Which makes me question whether he's even a fully credentialed chiropractor.

I understand that adding the word "physician" may be unnecessary or could be misleading to some layman and he could just go with chiropractor but he is a real licensed chiropractor, lol. He went to Palmer College of Chiropractic. And his profession under Florida Health is "chiropractic physician", so I am wondering is it called differently in different states...

[JenMcSnark]

49 minutes ago, waving feather said:

I understand that adding the word "physician" may be unnecessary or could be misleading to some layman and he could just go with chiropractor but he is a real licensed chiropractor, lol. He went to Palmer College of Chiropractic. And his profession under Florida Health is "chiropractic physician", so I am wondering is it called differently in different states...

After I read this question, I did a quick Google and I found this article which states this:

Quote

US Department of Labor bestows “physician” on DCs and NDs

The subject is front-and-center recently for a couple of reasons. First, the United States Department of Labor recently published O Net Online which replaces the Department’s Dictionary of Occupational Titles. (1) The language under the section 29.1011 titled “Chiropractors” notes that sample titles of these practitioners include “Chiropractic Physician” and “Physician.” (2)

Profession #29-1199.04 is listed as “Naturopathic Physicians.” Among job titles for this profession are “Naturopathic Physician,” and “Physician.” (3)  The American Association of Naturopathic Physicians (AANP) boasted of its success in working with the Department of Labor to create this positioning in an October 14, 2009 note to its members. (4)

So I guess I will agree with the article that times are a changing and I am now a Government Analytical Physician.  

However, I still think one is fully represented by calling oneself a "chiropractor", "dermatologist", and/or "acupuncturist" and adding the word physician to the end seems to me to be someone who is ego-driven and misleading in that it represents a level of knowledge, education, and/or expertise that exceeds the normal level for your field.  

And means that you have a small penis.

[Mu Shu]

On 6/27/2017 at 1:37 PM, uoflfan said:

Oh, those opening credits make me want to watch this so badly.  I wonder if it's online anywhere.  Hell, I'd pay per view it.

I love it too!   I already know I'll hate JJ.  Where can we find this wondrous show?

[Irlandesa]

1 hour ago, chocolatine said:

It's the use of the word "physician" that's deceptive. You can't just append it to any job title, otherwise I would call myself a "software engineering physician".

Which makes me question whether he's even a fully credentialed chiropractor.

You can call yourself a software engineering physician....and I still won't go to you with a heart arrhythmia.  So I don't think your job title would deceive me one bit. I'd ask you about how I can get my 'k' key unstuck. And then you'd probably direct me to hardware specialist because you're sick of people confusing the two (even if you do know the answer to my question.)

If he weren't licensed, he would have lost his lawsuit big time. 

Thanks @waving feather for his school info.

[leighdear]

The main thing is that Rachel can cover any nuisance lawsuits brought against her sweet baboo for chicanery, so no need to worry!  Unless they DON'T get married, of course.  Then I doubt he could afford her.  

Edited July 5, 2017 by leighdear