Psycho-Babble Administration | about the operation of this site | Framed
This thread | Show all | Post follow-up | Start new thread | List of forums | Search | FAQ

Lou's apology and redaction

Posted by Lou Pilder on March 24, 2015, at 20:45:26 [reposted on March 24, 2015, at 22:12:54 | original URL]

In reply to Lou's request-ehykrok Robert_Burton_1621, posted by Lou Pilder on March 24, 2015, at 16:58:40

> > > That last thing I want to see when severly depressed, so anxious I've been stuck in my shower for 4 and a half hours. Or just plan irratibile due to the problems my brain is causing me, is a seemingly non sensical unrelated speech about topics that I cannot string together no matter how hard I try. For this reason, if you plan on making a statement and getting a message across, please do it to people who actually have the mental stamina to abstractly think about whatever you are saying, and not to some of the most tprtured souls in the world. I beleive you will receive much more interactive and supportive talk if you post this message elsewhere.
> >
> > Outstandingly effective post which is at the same time concise. Commendable,. Bill.
> >
> > I have been seriously considering departing from this site altogether. And yet I remain because the site attracts and has members whose knowledge of mental disease and medication is so much more extensive than my own.
> >
> > Still, I have my concerns, and my health should not, as a consequence of remaining, be weakened.
> >
> > But it is and continues to be.
> >
> > Not infrequently, I receive email notifcations of follow-ups to threads in which I have conscientiously participated, in full knowledge of the limitations of my knowledge, with my very name in the subject-line of the notification and attended by some some menacing jibberish which appears to mistake itself as clever.
> >
> > In the substance of such notifications, I am then accused of trying to kill vulnerable people, of advocating the drugging of children, of complicity with authoritarian psychiatry, and of contributing to a pervasive and entrenched "antisemetic" culture at this website.
> >
> > In mu humble view, each imputation is utterly outrageous, totally without basis in fact, and intolerable, and would be libellous if it were possible that one's internet avatar (which is designed and used to conceal one's true identity) could be defamed.
> >
> > Everytime I receive such a menacing notification or "warning" by email, in respect of threads the responses to which I eagerly, and reasonably, anticipate, my anxiety increases, my already highly-developed tendency to self-hating rumination intensifies, my depressive disposition kicks in, and I begin to wonder why on earth, as a very recent member, I put myself at the *risk* of participating in the conversations on this site.
> >
> > This is the best site for peer-to-peer **intelligent** (not inflammatory, or misinformed, or irrational) discussion about medication. I have learnt a huge amoumt from members like Ed in the UK, for instance. Why jeopardise this status and reputation? If one is intent on being inflammatory, misinformed, and irrational, then - for the sake of the mental health of members of this site - it may well be advisable to post at other sites whose members are not as *clinically* vulnerable and desperate for accurate, experiential, advice and information on medications and treatment.
> >
> > If I may say so without disrespect, peurile injunctions - as the most recent one from Dr Hsuing in this thread - that all members are obliged to "respect" irrationality - are simply not satisfactory. Consider their logical applications. Such injunctions mandate that the proposition that mental illness be an illusory phenomonon is conferred "respect". Such injunctions mandate that the propsition that neuro-psychiatric disease be an invention of the powerful medical auhorities is conferred "respect". Such injunction mandate that the proposition that medication solutions to chronic suffering be always means of evading the "truth" about oneself be conferred "respect". Such injunctions mandate that Tom Cruise (for instance) be, in essence, a person whose opinion on psychiatry and medication should be conferred "respect".
> >
> > And all the while suffering humanity is obliged by authoritarian edict to remain "respectful" of the views of those who have not the slightest comprehension of, nor concern for, nor interest in, the aetiology, biological dimensions, and phenomenological trajectory of their suffering.
> >
> > Is this just?
> >
> > All I can say is that if that's the condition for beloninging here, then I'd sooner disappear now.
>
> Robert,
> You wrote that the opinion on psychiatry and medication as thought by Tom Cruise should be conferred 'respect".
> If you do not want to confer respect to Mr. Cruises opinions, which of the following would be acceptable to post here in your thinking:
> The opinions of Tom Cruise concerning psychiatry and medication:
> A. Are bullsh*t
> B. Are a earthen-ware container of defecation
> C. make no sense
> D. cause him to need to take Haldol
> E. all of the above
> F. none of the above
> G. A combination of the above which are ____
> H. something else which is _______________
> Lou

Robert Friends,
I apologize and redact my request to Robert here concerning Tom Cruise. The request by me to Robert was out of character to the mission of this forum
Lou

 

Thread

 

Post a new follow-up

Your message only Include above post


Notify the administrators

They will then review this post with the posting guidelines in mind.

To contact them about something other than this post, please use this form instead.

 

Start a new thread

 
Google
dr-bob.org www
Search options and examples
[amazon] for
in

This thread | Show all | Post follow-up | Start new thread | FAQ
Psycho-Babble Administration | Framed

poster:Lou Pilder thread:1077800
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20140902/msgs/1077809.html