161 1 Professor Emeritus, University of Cincinnati. Correspondence should be addressed to Walter N. Stone, MD, 23 DeSilva Island Drive, Mill Valley, CA 94941. E-mail: w_stone@comcast.net. In her discussion of Freud’s 1910 article “Wild Analysis,” Muriel Dimen (2014) offhandedly states that we don’t often think about the impact on the therapist when the patient, usually a clinician, is aware that the therapist also is an author and may write about the therapeutic encounter. Dimen comments, “With another patient not in the field and/or about whom I would not be writing, my tack would inevitably be different” (p. 510). Dimen is highlighting the bi-personal nature of the relationship. I found myself intrigued by her disclosure, not only about patients who are clinicians, but about all patients. I wondered how this referenced me and may have impacted my writing about clinical material. In “Thinking About Our Work: Case Presentations” (Stone, 2014), I explained how I informed the group members about my writing and publications. I understood that patients fear exposure, and I was disguising their identities. With some groups, I read portions of what I had written. However, I had not attended to or even been aware of how I may have subtly and unknowingly altered my own subsequent responses following their commenting on my writing. I believed that I had ethically fulfilled my responsibility by informing the members about my writing, but I did not think more deeply into how their knowing about my writing had impacted me and how I subsequently interacted and spoke with them. What Dimen brings to the table is the situation that occurs when both patient and therapist know of the publication and the therapist is inhibited from saying things that might be said in the absence of writing, publishing, or presenting the therapeutic work. I certainly, even retrospectively, cannot recall changing how I