Psycho-Babble Medication Thread 13988

Shown: posts 2 to 26 of 40. Go back in thread:

 

Re: Suggestions

Posted by Adam on October 27, 1999, at 0:10:40

In reply to Suggestions, posted by Weary on October 26, 1999, at 23:40:53

Hmm. I'm sure I've been guilty of some of these things sometimes.
Perhaps just by responding to this I'm somehow contributing to the problem.
It's very hard to know, really.
It's also very hard to accomodate all individual tastes and sensibilities.
Sorry to contribute to the bandwidth problem, but I see no easy solution
to your concerns.

> I have noticed several recent trends on this board which create ungodly long threads. These, in turn, cause the PsychoBabble page to take forever to load and make scrolling through the posts a tiring task and, truth be told, bore the hell out of me.
> Some suggestions for posts that can be eliminated:
> 1. Post has nothing to do with the originating post, (e.g. something in a responding post intrigues you)-- Start a new thread and address it to that person under a new subject heading.
> 2. "Me too" posts -- resist the urge to see your name in print. If you have nothing to add for the original poster, why bother?
> 3. "Mutual Admiration" posts, i.e., ad nauseum back and forth between responders of "you're so strong, caring, funny, cute, supportive", etc. -- Get a room. Take it outside. Email your affection. Leave it out of the thread. If you feel the need to put "hehe" in the text, you can be sure your post falls in this category.
> 4. Flaming posts -- Take your meds, check the moon, have a cup of herbal tea and then decide if you really want to jump all over someone who has a similar disorder to you and is struggling with their own demons. Re-read the post that irked you and see if it could be interpreted in different way.
> 5. Life Story posts -- Interesting if they have some bearing on the original question/statement. Self-aggrandizing if not, and an insult to the original poster. Check your motives.
> I am not talking about posts that have no answer for the responder other than "I care". Sometimes that is the most important answer.
> Ok, I've gotten that out of my system. Now I'll go take my meds, check the moon and have a cup of herbal tea.
> Have a nice day!
> Weary

 

Re: Suggestions

Posted by weary too on October 27, 1999, at 4:27:26

In reply to Suggestions, posted by Weary on October 26, 1999, at 23:40:53

Scrolling through psychobabble archives shows a change of personality. This website has usually been pharmaceutical discussion. Medical. Technical. Sometimes a chance to offer support when in crisis. But usually medicine oriented. More pharmaceutical support than personal support. Tips on drugs. Side effects. Augmentations etc. The suggestions in wearys post are good as I see it.
Psychobabble could really be anything. As the name implies. It does sound more babble lately. Nothing wrong with that I guess. But what I envision is a forum where doctors would be comfortable joining in. Wouldn't it be neat if doctor's came in? I'm afraid when they browse through they see the nonmedical discussions they will not participate. I would like to see get back to previous medical slant. I am afraid the personal slant will chase away experts I crave hearing from. I want to see more advisory discussions. Some posts I like are Elizabeth, St James, Adam, JohnL, Andrew, Jamie, WayneR, Dr. Bob, etc. Others too. You know who you are. I prefer that to-the-point technical slant. Less of the personal stuff. Don't misunderstand me. I like the personal discussions too. But Email or chatrooms are better venues those. I would be less depressed to see psychobabble get back to its medical-technical babble roots.

 

Re: I second the emotion

Posted by weary three on October 27, 1999, at 11:25:59

In reply to Re: Suggestions, posted by weary too on October 27, 1999, at 4:27:26

I hate to but I have to agree. I have always found psychobabble unique among it's peers in the matter discussed on it. I am not criticizing all the topics discussed but many are not even related to our ailments. I too envision this site as a proffesional but sensitive place to research and ask questions about meds. Maybe even getting a reply from a doc or two. I have been a regular since the beginning and would hate to see it go astray.

 

Hate to rain on the party, but ...

Posted by Bob on October 27, 1999, at 15:36:51

In reply to Re: I second the emotion, posted by weary three on October 27, 1999, at 11:25:59

I've only been here a couple of months. I can say anything about its history before August. But there are a few things that I have noticed:

There are still a lot, perhaps a majority, of threads on medications and more technical stuff. It's great to have the information. But what I find valuable in it is not the PDR Party Line, or information that I could get from a place like www.mentalhealth.com's medications list, but the real world experiences of people on meds for their disorders (as opposed to random subjects of some clinical trial) and the things they have had to struggle with. One prime example that comes to mind is the klonopin/clonazepam issue--how in some people's experiences, generic klonopin was weaker than brand-name klonopin (and that wasn't necessarily a bad thing). I asked my current pharmacist and all I got was the party line: generics must go through rigorous testing the demonstrate their bioequivalence to the brand-name meds. If what I wanted was text-book lectures, I would have gone to med school. If all I ever got out of babble was the PL from the PTB, I'd still be thinking I was even MORE abnormal than I was prior to meds, given how hard I've been hit by sexual side effects from Zoloft. Inspite of Pfizer's old ad, I certainly do not have "that Zoloft Smile!" My point? Again, there's a lot of discussion about meds. I don't think that doctors chiming in all the time giving the "appropriate answers" would do much to keep an open and free flow of information.

To put it another way, the discussion about meds here is a lot like playing frisbee -- the disc gets tossed to whoever calls for it. If degreed experts were lining up to answer our questions for us, its more like having one of those paddleballs, with the ball attached to the paddle by an elastic chord. The experts would have the control, they'd be holding the paddle. Besides, you think there's a bevy of doctors out there with the free time to offer free advice to patients they do not know about medications and situations that could turn lethal? For a doctor to stick his or her neck out to answer questions from strangers on a regular basis about medicating depression is begging for a lawsuit in our lawsuit-happy society.

As for personal stories and such...just as much as the info about meds, I am here for people's stories. I have been living a life where I feel so alone, so isolated, because the only people who seem as f*ck*d up as me are my family, and I really don't want to talk to any of them. When I read someone's story, it's like a palimpsest. Each new story writes over the same space in which the others were told, and you can see them all, including your own, one on top of the other, sharing similar paths, dealing with similar issues, asking questions you've been afraid to face for you, not daring to walk where you have been and seeing yourself as a guide. I have met two people on this board face to face--Anita and Dr. B--but that does not lessen my sense that I am more a part of this community than any other geographically or socially-defined community that may also claim me. That feeling of community and belonging does not come from any sense of similarities in neurochemistry, but rather in the way we live our lives by force and by choice. We know from the times we try to explain what depression is about to people who haven't been there--their voices say, "I understand" but their faces say "I'm clueless"-- *I* know I can say on this board that sometimes the most courageous act a person could ever possibly manage is to simply get out of bed in the morning, and I *know* there are people out there reading my words who have been there, who have done that, and who truly understand what I mean.

It's the reason why I'm so sad Janey Girl has left. Some people here, and some new arrivials in the next few whatevers, can cover for the debt in pharmeceutical knowledge left when she quit this board. But no one can cover the debt left by the withdrawal of her life experiences. We may have parallel experiences. We may deeply understand what she had shared. We may feel sympathetic vibrations from her words down to the marrow of our bones. But we will not have her experiences to learn from, to cry with, to return strength to her.

I'd prefer that didn't happen to the rest of us.

Dr. Bob does a good job of archiving material. Rarely does it get over 120k in size, in my short experience. That's 30 seconds to a minute download time on my 28.8 modem, depending on traffic. I've lived through greater discomforts than that -- particularly while surfing the web. With broadband just around the corner for most if not all of us, I'd hate to set a precedent that will become meaningless once you've got a cable modem or DSL being pumped into your home. There is little to gain and a great deal to lose.

My two cents,
Bob

 

Re: Suggestions

Posted by Also Weary on October 27, 1999, at 18:49:22

In reply to Suggestions, posted by Weary on October 26, 1999, at 23:40:53

I'm afraid I have to line up behind "Weary." I had come to know PsychoBabble as a place to ask specific questions about symptoms of mental illness, AD's, side effects, etc. and receive a *specific* answer. Lately, it seems that unless posters are witty, well-spoken and well-read, they are too boring or too much of a downer to be bothered with.

Some of us are truly ill and in desperate need of plain old advice. Absolutely no digs intended here, but we don't have the strength to wade through multi-paragraphed monologues which contain words like "palimbsests." We aren't ready right now (and may never be) to read in-depth descriptions of experiences with sexual appliances. We are having a hard enough time getting out of bed, trying to keep our jobs and keep food on our tables, much less converse about Zen and the "down & dirty" of Tom Waits. Sure, we envy and applaud your energy and enthusiasm and your ability to form several cohesive sentences in a row - but downright depresses us further. This was supposed to be our place to go for help. And PLEASE resist the urge to yank an old 87-thread-long post out of the archives and bring it forward to make one more comment. Start a new post, will ya?

Perhaps there should be a separate "Community" BB called "PsychoBabble-On-and-On" for the high achievers. Hopefully, some of us will join you there when we're feeling better.

I know the full moon has passed and I've taken my meds, so I guess it's time to try the herbal tea?

 

Sometimes expressing yourself is the pleasure ...

Posted by janice on October 27, 1999, at 21:03:54

In reply to Re: Suggestions, posted by Adam on October 27, 1999, at 0:10:40

and the most important part of any posting. This posting will have long disappeared within a couple of weeks. Unless you can reach Dr. Bob, you're dreaming. Sorry you're so weary, Janice.

 

Re: Suggestions

Posted by Dee on October 27, 1999, at 23:12:20

In reply to Suggestions, posted by Weary on October 26, 1999, at 23:40:53

Weary brought up some very good points. I am not saying that I agree 100% and as far as lengthy posts with little contribution, I am guilty as charged.

Yet these long postings, writing and receiving them, has definitely saved some very bad days when I have had nowhere else to turn for help. On the other hand, when I first came around, looking for information specifically on the new medicines I had started taking: Serzone, trazodone, remeron etc. this site was the most valuable source of true life experiences and information from others that had gone that road before me. Also, of importance was the fact that posting under heading Serzone actually were about experiences about Serzone - concise, compact, to the point, and easy to find.

Like Weary, I wish we will not need to witness that sort of information become buried under marginally related issues.

How we feel, and how medicines affect our feelings and lives, how we cope with side effects (Like in my case simply to know about the very common feelings of rage while upping Serzone, something my p-doc had never heard of...), or simply how we drag ourselves up in the morning, or survive from day to day are certainly no marginal issues. Or are they? Where should we draw the line?

Let us not forget that people die of these diseases. If we can use the Internet as a life support system, I think we should.

I have just one suggestion: Let us all put aside our defenses, and participate in this conversation rather than start throwing monologues on each other. Every community will necessarily come to a point where traffic gets so dense that everybody must agree about which side of the road they will be driving. That is what we are facing.

The issue is not clean cut information about medicines vs. peer support. It is about finding ways that we all can preserve what we value most in this site. (Maybe two parallel babbles wouldn't be such a bad idea.)

Another thing for Weary's favor: one of the reasons I stayed with Psycho babble was that there was not that feeling of established and closed circle of the type "remember what we were talking about last Christmas." A newcomer will necessarily feel outside when that kinds of bounds exist. So, here's my other suggestion: Let us keep in mine that the web is Ďa broadcast medium' - we should post information and responses to postings, I don't think we ought to engage in person to person dialogues, or address anyone specifically by name, etc.

I am certainly not going to cast the first stone on anyone. Just want to say thank you for Weary for pointing out and making me think about that I have at occasions used this site for my typing practices, with little or nothing to say. I am looking forward to some constructive suggestions by all ya creative, intelligent people around.

Dee

PS. my email is tapani@juno.com

 

Re: This is a bbs for mutual education & support

Posted by dj on October 28, 1999, at 0:50:30

In reply to Re: Suggestions, posted by Dee on October 27, 1999, at 23:12:20

I agree with much but not all of the above from all points of view. Yes the threads & postings sometimes go on far too long and some become
lengthy tangents from the main topic & these can be broken up more and added to less. I for one have contributed to those types of discussion & tangents have even introduced the subject of Tom Waits.

However I make no apologies for the latter as I believe good writing (which the piece I copied was an example of) can be uplifting and though it did not refer to medications it did refer to a musician who is uplifting to some & might be to others who are not familiar with him -- hence the article shared a bit of the flavour of him.

And it didn't take up 1/1000 as much bandwith as do the folks who don't take the time to delete the part of the thread they are responding to. That uneccessay reposting of requoted prose if eliminated would speed up downloads considerably.

And I've posted other pieces I've copied from elsewhere that discussed SAMe, the Vargus Nerve device and other things that are more directly in line with medicinal solutions to depression.

I'm not attempting to be dismissive here but I do believe if the only focus here is on meds than that is too limited a view of what can be uplifting. It's useful to get perspectives on the meds and it's equally useful to get perspective on people's experiences of depression and different ways of dealing with it. And the odd bit of banter, beyond the stale medicinal babble adds flavour and life to what otherwise can be stale discussion of medical obsessions.

I enjoy much of the dicussion that goes on here and believe it is in line with the header to this page which states that: "This is a bulletin board for mutual education and support." Support does not come merely from a discussion of symptoms and medications, it can also come from a sense of community which I believe there is on this board & which I find uplifting< challengiing, supportive and informative at times.

In keeping with the supportive role of this BBS I will generally endeavour to not prolong lengthy threads or post excessively babbly comments or go off on tangental topics. However I also find many of the discussions that go on here supportive, stimulating, educational & relevant and believe they belong here as much as the medicinal babble & that the odd bit of interpersonal banter does not distract from the latter & in is often much more stimulating.

 

Community "netiquette"

Posted by Bob on October 28, 1999, at 8:59:42

In reply to Re: This is a bbs for mutual education & support, posted by S. S on October 28, 1999, at 7:16:14

Yeah, with Dee and dj I'm also guilty of tiring people out, out there in Babbleland. But Dee and some of the Weary bring up some good points of reason. Perhaps the most important being that this *is* a diverse community and as such, we need to show respect for what others want and need from this group.

This sort of dissention offer ruins listservs and email groups because of the serial manner in which everyone gets subjected to everything. The great thing about the structure of this board is that you can decide whether you want to read something by the title of the thread. I'm not interested in SAM-E, phototherapy, or MAOI discussions, so I skip them. On the other hand, there are a large number of people who I've come to respect through the nature and quality of their posts, so seeing a follow-up by one of these people to a thread often pulls me into something I wouldn't have examined otherwise. Another great structural tool on this site are those new tags. They make it very easy to page down/up (instead of scrolling) and find what's new (imagine that ;^) since the last time you loaded the page. Meaningful thread titles and these new tags are both important aids to picking out only the things you want to read ... leaving the rest to whoever wants to read them.

As a number of folks have pointed out, tho, that tend to turn threads into gorilla-sized "cables." Deleting the auto-quoted previous response is a great suggestion, coupled with using only the parts of a quoted response that you want to illustrate. Remember that this server can be achingly slow, particularly when responding to a Submit request, so don't hit that submit button a second or third time. Knowing that the post you've just submitted will not show up in the list until you hit the Refresh/Reload button, so there's no need to enter it twice. Knowing also that hitting the refresh/reload button will erase all the "new" tags, even on posts you haven't seen, so perhaps its better to scroll to the bottom of the list before you go looking for your post on-line.

To the weary ones out there -- although your handles are a great show of mutual support and it does appear to have an effect on us babble-on-&-on'ers, I hope that it's also not a concern about getting flamed. You've got every right to speak your mind reasonably, and there certainly is a difference between "constructive criticism" and slagging someone. I hope this latter concern isn't the reason for the handles, since discussions like these are needed from time to time to keep things from escalating. I do respect the input that you've given here.

Thanks,
Bob

 

Re: Truth in labeling

Posted by Andy on October 28, 1999, at 12:19:10

In reply to Community "netiquette", posted by Bob on October 28, 1999, at 8:59:42

You can't please everyone.

I personally prefer the succint post without alot of longwinded personal angst. So guess what--I skip those. I wouldn't deny those who obviously get something from those posts that benefit just because it's not to my taste.

Perhaps the solution is be more descriptive in the title of the post so people can more quickly decide if it's something they're interested in.

Alternatively, if Dr. Bob were so inclined, the board could be divided into sub boards--Meds, Chat, Personal Stories etc.

In the meantime just label your post clearly. If the page takes a while to load that's a small inconvenience.

> Yeah, with Dee and dj I'm also guilty of tiring people out, out there in Babbleland. But Dee and some of the Weary bring up some good points of reason. Perhaps the most important being that this *is* a diverse community and as such, we need to show respect for what others want and need from this group.
>
> This sort of dissention offer ruins listservs and email groups because of the serial manner in which everyone gets subjected to everything. The great thing about the structure of this board is that you can decide whether you want to read something by the title of the thread. I'm not interested in SAM-E, phototherapy, or MAOI discussions, so I skip them. On the other hand, there are a large number of people who I've come to respect through the nature and quality of their posts, so seeing a follow-up by one of these people to a thread often pulls me into something I wouldn't have examined otherwise. Another great structural tool on this site are those new tags. They make it very easy to page down/up (instead of scrolling) and find what's new (imagine that ;^) since the last time you loaded the page. Meaningful thread titles and these new tags are both important aids to picking out only the things you want to read ... leaving the rest to whoever wants to read them.
>
> As a number of folks have pointed out, tho, that tend to turn threads into gorilla-sized "cables." Deleting the auto-quoted previous response is a great suggestion, coupled with using only the parts of a quoted response that you want to illustrate. Remember that this server can be achingly slow, particularly when responding to a Submit request, so don't hit that submit button a second or third time. Knowing that the post you've just submitted will not show up in the list until you hit the Refresh/Reload button, so there's no need to enter it twice. Knowing also that hitting the refresh/reload button will erase all the "new" tags, even on posts you haven't seen, so perhaps its better to scroll to the bottom of the list before you go looking for your post on-line.
>
> To the weary ones out there -- although your handles are a great show of mutual support and it does appear to have an effect on us babble-on-&-on'ers, I hope that it's also not a concern about getting flamed. You've got every right to speak your mind reasonably, and there certainly is a difference between "constructive criticism" and slagging someone. I hope this latter concern isn't the reason for the handles, since discussions like these are needed from time to time to keep things from escalating. I do respect the input that you've given here.
>
> Thanks,
> Bob

 

Re: Run on threads...

Posted by dj on October 28, 1999, at 22:28:04

In reply to Re: Truth in labeling, posted by Andy on October 28, 1999, at 12:19:10

BTW, I was looking for some back-info. myself and noted that some of the threads on the pages I glanced at -- the June 1/99 is a prime example -- were far longer than most I've seen here in the past few months in which I've been observing this BBS. Which is not to say we can't do better but to point out how selective mermory can be...

And as the previous couple of posters have noted if you don't take to some of these lengthier postings, or ones that diverge from your direct interest, it's easy enough not to read them.

As an aside it would be great if there was an easy way to search these back postings for partiicular topics without having to page back & back & back...some more. Now, that's tedious!

 

The nature of this board

Posted by Noa on October 29, 1999, at 7:15:13

In reply to Re: Run on threads..., posted by dj on October 28, 1999, at 22:28:04

Those who know me probably have noticed I have been off the board for a couple of days. I was lurking some, but then took a break because the board was getting REEEEEAAAAALLLLLLLYYY SSSSSLLLLOOOOOOOOOOWWWWWWWW. I wonder if the timing of this thread is related to any problem that might have been occurring in how slowly this board was working (please note the absence of any technical language, as I really don't know why it was so slow).
I enjoy the diversity. SOmetimes I want specific med information, sometimes I just want to commune with people who have had similar experiences with depression, meds, etc. I pick and choose what to read. And when I am the author of those more rambling posts, I simply assume that those who will be interested will read, and those who aren't, wont. The fact that this posts attracts well informed, intelligent folks, who take an interest in educating themselves about meds, their particular disorders, etc. is the most important thing. Whether we are talking about technical or personal stuff is not as much an issue as the fact that I respect them all, and feel a certain connection.
I agree with the suggestion to delete the previous post when you respond. I also think it is possible to develop a kind of courteous convention of somehow labeling the post as technical or expressive, or both, so people might choose whether to open it or not. Perhaps simply adding the letter T for technical or E for expressive (an arbitrary choice, as most social conventions are--other suggestions welcome) after the title of the post. Example:

Re: Life on Meds--Approaching 40/E
or:

Re: Life on Meds--Approaching 40/T

or: Re: Life on Meds--Approaching 40/TE

Personally, this board has saved my life in more ways than one. The specific info has both given me knowledge I needed to be more on top of my own treatment, as well as give me hope that even tho my treatment wasn't working optimally, there might be another one that would. The info on serzone that I got from Dee helped me hang in there until the initial negative effects wore off. But I also connected to Dee and others at that time, and the personal connections have also been a life saver. I have seen this board as a community, a diverse one, with room for the tech-oriented as well as the interpersonal-oriented. Even the occassional relgion-oriented. It makes me feel so good that all have been welcome.

 

Re: The nature of this board

Posted by Bob on October 29, 1999, at 12:52:26

In reply to The nature of this board, posted by Noa on October 29, 1999, at 7:15:13

Well, I don't know about the rest of you, but I think Noa's got a great idea. I used to be on Guy Kawasaki's EvangeList and within each mail message was a similar system to identify stories within each post. But getting back to Babble:

T IMO is a good choice. I think it would cover issues both about medication and about diagnoses, side effects, and other issues about our disorders and how medications interact with them. I like T better than something like M, for medical, because it is a gentle reminder to provide the straight dope on these threads when responding. They are for Technical discussions.

E IMO is also a good choice. Emotive, Expressive, Experiential, whatever you want to call it. I like the idea of keeping some connection to it being an Expressive thread of discussion.

I'd argue to keep such a system as simple as possible, so I'd suggest only one more category -- G for general. This thread is a good example of a G. Questions about anonymity through this medium is as well. The Dr. Bob World Tour also fits. If it isn't T or E, it's G.

(Good thinking, Noa ... I wish I had your brain ... ;^)
Bob

 

Re: The nature of this board (G)

Posted by dove on October 29, 1999, at 14:34:48

In reply to Re: The nature of this board, posted by Bob on October 29, 1999, at 12:52:26

I also prefer to put "long" in the subject header, especially if I'm quoting a technical/medical abstract and those can be very long! So, if we can warn other community members with a simple warning in the subject header that should help I would think.

Just one important note, we need to make sure we're not jumping on any newbies for not using or abiding by these distinctions. Let everyone who decides to utilize these netiquette manners give everyone else a break if they choose not to.

dove

 

Re: The nature of this board (?)

Posted by Judy on October 29, 1999, at 17:46:15

In reply to Re: The nature of this board (G), posted by dove on October 29, 1999, at 14:34:48

LOL! I burst into laughter when I saw the "G" rating on Dove's post! I thought "Hmmm - Is that supposed to mean 'General Audience'?" Any chance there could be a "Symbols Legend" on the Board for someone like me who can't remember her first name right now?

Could you run those ratings by one more time?

Judy

 

Re: The nature of this board...friendship

Posted by Deb R. on October 29, 1999, at 20:53:18

In reply to Re: The nature of this board (?), posted by Judy on October 29, 1999, at 17:46:15

I think a type of friendship has developed - this is a lovely thing I reckon!

Deb.

 

Rating System?

Posted by dj on October 29, 1999, at 22:20:38

In reply to Re: The nature of this board (?), posted by Judy on October 29, 1999, at 17:46:15

Nice concept, however I think it is pretty obvious by the headings of most posts what category they fall into. Dr. B's World Tour for instance is not one I would rush to , to check on meds. On the other hand an L for longer posts would make sense...say for instance if one goes beyond three of these posting infill screens...


 

Re: Rating System?

Posted by Dr. Bob on October 30, 1999, at 11:18:34

In reply to Rating System?, posted by dj on October 29, 1999, at 22:20:38

Hi, everyone,

I like the way some issues were brought up here, then some possible ways of addressing them. I'm just following the discussion for now. If some of the Wearied would say what they thought of the possibilities proposed, I'd be interested. Since consensus would be the best outcome...

Bob

 

Re: The nature of this board...friendship

Posted by Bob on October 30, 1999, at 16:39:33

In reply to Re: The nature of this board...friendship, posted by Deb R. on October 29, 1999, at 20:53:18

> I think a type of friendship has developed - this is a lovely thing I reckon!

... and Deb, you are an absolute joy to point that out. =^)

Bob

 

Re: This is a bbs for mutual education & support

Posted by Phil R. on October 30, 1999, at 23:29:52

In reply to Re: This is a bbs for mutual education & support, posted by dj on October 28, 1999, at 0:50:30

> I enjoy much of the dicussion that goes on here and believe it is in line with the header to this page which states that: "This is a bulletin board for mutual education and support."

Until now, I've been only a lurker to this bulletin board, and worse yet, an intermittent lurker. When I first started lurking, I was a little confused about the board's intended scope. The focus seemed to be mostly limited to the pharmacological treatment of unipolar depression. This is indeed a worthy area of ongoing discussion. But there are other psychiatric/psychological illnesses, and treatments other than medication (e.g. psychotherapy). I can easily envision people in these other situations who are also seeking a safe place to discuss their situations and treatment with supportive, like-minded folks who've been there. I hope many non-medication topics (such as Allison's request for info about hospitalization) are considered appropriate for this board.

I had considered submitting a question about pitfalls in the psychotherapeutic treatment of anxiety disorders and PTSD. But it seemed, and seems, too far outside of the usual topics here, and I was uncertain that anyone following this board would be interested. So I looked elsewhere in search of commentary and answers.

How welcome would mental health topics other than depression be here? How welcome would discussion of treatments other than medication be here? Or should these discussion instead take place in UseNet newsgroups? I don't mean to cause a stir, but I'm curious and I don't want to push the scope of this bulletin board further than its most frequent users would feel comfortable with.

- Phil R. (not the other Phil)

 

Re: This is a bbs for mutual education & support

Posted by Bob on October 31, 1999, at 0:57:34

In reply to Re: This is a bbs for mutual education & support, posted by Phil R. on October 30, 1999, at 23:29:52

Hi Phil R.

Your points are why I *don't* think Babble should be Balkanized into separate discussions. Sign me up for the "One Big Tent" Babbleparty.

If you've got questions about treatment -- whether drug therapy or talk therapy -- you should feel welcome bringing them up here. In the few months I've been here, I've seen numerous threads on Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing, Electroconvulsive Therapy, and Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation ... not to mention the current thread on Phototherapy for Seasonal Affective Disorder (dj, the lack of acronyms was for you ;^). More traditional forms of non-pharmeceutical therapy are one thing I really *haven't* seen brought up.

Phil R, a lot of people here talk about anxiety disorders and PTSD as well as depression -- with overlapping symptoms, concurrent disorders, whatever, a lot of folks have to deal with combinations of depression, anxiety, OCD, whatever. IMO (oops ... TLA), your specific concern about the efficacy of traditional talk therapy for conditions like PTSD or other anxiety disorders sounds like a great topic for a thread! It's your idea -- go ahead.

Cheers,
Bob

 

Re: Rating System?

Posted by JohnL on October 31, 1999, at 3:03:37

In reply to Re: Rating System?, posted by Dr. Bob on October 30, 1999, at 11:18:34

> Hi, everyone,
>
> I like the way some issues were brought up here, then some possible ways of addressing them. I'm just following the discussion for now. If some of the Wearied would say what they thought of the possibilities proposed, I'd be interested. Since consensus would be the best outcome...
>
> Bob

I tend to fall on both sides of the fence in this debate. I think both sides presented valid points. I didn't see anything on either side that I disagreed with. I think this site will effectively self-police itself. Anytime there is a concern, someone like Weary will step in to create some awareness. Already I sense a responsible change in posts just based on debates here. I think both sides learned something from it. I'm glad this issue was brought up.

As for consensus on suggestions, the one I liked was the one about having another psychobabble for more personal discussions. You know, a place where we can go to say, "Hey I'm feeling bad, any words of encouragement out there?" Or, "Hey, it's a full moon today." Or, "Hey this isn't really related, but I have this off-the-wall theory on how my childhood caused my depression." A place for the long philosophical touchy feely kind of discussions. One place for technical discussions, another for general chat discussions. That would probably be a nightmare to set-up and manage, but that's the idea I liked best. I would personally find both locations of interest to myself.

 

Re: Rating System?

Posted by JohnL p.s. on October 31, 1999, at 3:31:48

In reply to Re: Rating System?, posted by JohnL on October 31, 1999, at 3:03:37

Just a followup to my previous post. It falls under the category of participants self-policing. I liked the suggestion of starting a new thread in the current month rather than reviving an already long thread from a previous month. That wouldn't require any formal changes to the site. Just awareness among regular visitors.

 

Re: This board

Posted by Noa on October 31, 1999, at 6:58:58

In reply to Re: Rating System?, posted by JohnL p.s. on October 31, 1999, at 3:31:48

Phil R., there have been lots of other disorders discussed here--social phobia, ADHD, bipolar I, Bipolar II, Cyclothymia, etc. etc. I am with ABD Bob in not wanting to divide this board up. I also like John L.'s suggestion not to bring forward long threads from the archives. However, sometimes, you want to respond to a previous post. Dr. Bob, is there anyway it could work so that you could respond to an archived post without bringing forward the entire thread? Otherwise, I would agree with the idea of starting a new thread and referencing the post you are thinking about (from the archives) that you are responding to. It doesn't actually bother me much to have those archived threads forward, but it clearly bothers some other folks here, so I would be willing to make this change, as suggested by John L. Other than that, the mix of pharm talk and support talk, etc. doesn't bother me. I like the diversity. I pick and choose sometimes what I want to read based on what my particular interest is at that time.

 

unipolar depression is only one mental illness...

Posted by Janice on October 31, 1999, at 12:28:30

In reply to Re: This is a bbs for mutual education & support, posted by Phil R. on October 30, 1999, at 23:29:52

and the people who have it (the Wearies, I believe) seem to be more likely to think they are going to get better from a pill; thus all the interest in pharmacological treatment of unipolar depression on this board. And it is a worthy topic of conversation, but only one.

Go for it Phil. I welcome diverse topics, enjoy making contact with people who have similar experiences as I do, learning from them (I go to my doctor for the scientific part of my healing), and sometimes just expressing myself. I have exactly 0 people (outside my doctor) to talk to about my disorders at the moment. And I, for one, haven't gotten to where I am by taking pills - although they have helped significantly.

Please submit your posting, I would enjoy it. Janice.


Go forward in thread:


Show another thread

URL of post in thread:


Psycho-Babble Medication | Extras | FAQ


[dr. bob] Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD, bob@dr-bob.org

Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.