dear all i joined this discussion in the hope of learning from alternative points of view. it was dr nathanson who referred to the patient as brief psychosis. in the interest of fostering reliable communication i pointed out that this seemed an idiosyncratic usage,unjustified by the case description. dr nathanson now describes what might be an acute transient delusional state,although the possibility of an obsessive thought exists since the conviction of danger remains unclear. now regardless of my penchant for digital diagnosis i submit that this case report which will be the subject of much deep discussion re dynamics and treatment was radically incomplete in an important area. i too am interested in affects and hopefully will get around to following the kind advice about my reading --nonetheless to find out that the patient is capable of an apparently brief delusional reaction is certainly important data , which my query elicited. is that useful in dr nathansons framework?