Dr. Quick lives in South Carolina where he provides medical advice to diabetics at his website “d-is-for diabetes” http://www.d-is-for-diabetes.com/shareposts.htm
Bill Spews:
“I have challenged the author (SMS) to produce any e-mail or other documentation that I used the words “psychotic” or “psychosis” to describe him. He was unable to produce any such correspondence. I asked him to remove the sentence at this blogpost that falsely states “William Quick has previously accused me of being a thief, a liar, and a psychotic” and he has refused. I totally expect that he either (a) will not allow this comment to be posted, or (b) write another nasty, bullying blogpost accusing me of something vile and evil (G*d only knows what he will do).”
Bill is correct.
There is a difference between the medical diagnosis of severe neurosis and the medical diagnosis of psychoses, mental illnesses characterized by hallucinations and living in an alternative reality. In medical practice, neurosis is a similar condition that can lead patients to harm themselves and others. Both terms are included in the common word “crazy” and in the legal defining of “insane.” Bill’s point is very important clinically because psychotics and neurotics respond differently to different drugs and therapies.
Severe neurosis is a very serious problem. For example, many of the murders occurring in our schools and malls have been committed by severely neurotic individuals. Often these people have fantasies, false memories, about how others have treated them. Obviously not all such people buy and use an AR 15 or win one in a South Carolina Tea Party raffle). Severe neurosis can disrupt families, create severe depression, and motivate the sort of law suits Bill has been associated with. These types of neurosis are what Bill presumably intended in saying the University should have me committed (below). As for commitment, I do not know the law in his state of South Carolina, but in Washington and most other states commitment requires that the subject be a danger to themselves or others.
In summary, while neither of us is a psychiatrist, and Bill is not licensed to practice in South Carolina, either of us could bring a concern about a severe psychiatric illness to the authorities with the intent that the person be forced to submit to an evaluation for commitment. This is exactly what Dr. Quick threatened:
from your emails
I plan to notify the administration of UW that you have violated their “Complaint Resolution” 
process by your retaliation, and I will request that they therefore apply “appropriate corrective action” but that they do not terminate your employment there. I do not think you should be terminated, although it is clear that you need to have psychiatric care for your out-of-control behaviors on top of your underlying psychopathy. I shall suggest to the UW that you be put on a mandatory medical leave of absence for psychiatric care.
…
process by your retaliation, and I will request that they therefore apply “appropriate corrective action” but that they do not terminate your employment there. I do not think you should be terminated, although it is clear that you need to have psychiatric care for your out-of-control behaviors on top of your underlying psychopathy. I shall suggest to the UW that you be put on a mandatory medical leave of absence for psychiatric care.…
You are f**king crazy. “Full police powers” Bullshit. Do you mean that they can arrest Hugh if you decide to claim that he stole the jewelry? Or that they can shoot him dead?The only obvious purpose for having an armed thug-for-hire present is to intimidate Hugh and Steph. I will not allow Steph to be present at any time that an armed person is on-site or nearby. If indeed we find one on the premises, we will leave, and will seek a court order to have you hospitalized as mentally ill and a danger to yourself and others.
Get back on your meds, and get rid of the crooked cop scenario.
There are more of Bill’s intemperate emails and I have welcomed him to post comments or publish about his thoughts on TA.
Stephen makes the somewhat sneering and totally misleading comment in this blogpost that “Bill is not licensed to practice in South Carolina” as if it were a requirement that I obtain a medical license in the state to which I moved after retiring from active medical practice!
OTOH, Stephen has let his limited license in Washington lapse, so it is correct to say that “Stephen is not licensed to practice in Washington.”
There is and was no intent to be sneering. I have read some of the sites where you provide medical advice and find them quite good!