Psycho-Babble Medication Thread 17556

Shown: posts 2 to 26 of 71. Go back in thread:

 

Re: Dr. Jensen: Snake Oil Salesmen-Michele

Posted by Larry on December 26, 1999, at 23:11:14

In reply to Dr. Jensen: Snake Oil Salesmen, posted by canadian michele on December 26, 1999, at 22:51:11

> Guys:
>
> Let us maintain integrity of site.
>
>
> Dr. Jensen is a charleton.
>
>
> michele

Whoa! Wait a minute. On what basis do you make such a strong accusation? Jensen's theories and practice may seem unreasonable in your opinion... maybe...but not maintaining the integrity of this BB for disussing a specific doctor and their practice? I would think that it would on the contrary lend credibility to discuss intelligently any new ideas - of course in a friendly way.

Larry

 

Re: Assessing Dr. Jensen's methods

Posted by JD on December 27, 1999, at 1:46:51

In reply to Re: Dr. Jensen: Snake Oil Salesmen-Michele, posted by Larry on December 26, 1999, at 23:11:14

Hello all,

Thought I'd throw in my two cents on Dr. Jensen. Having just spent some time going through his website, I have rather mixed feelings. On the one hand, I think the underlying impulse behind his treatment strategy (multiple, diverse, fast-paced drug trials at low dosages) is laudable: in my humble opinion, the next ten years are going to really undo what a lot of today's pdocs still assume about minimum dosages, trial length, and what "works" and what doesn't for different kinds of disorders. At the same time, for someone who charges up to $300 for a one-hour session, his credentials and level of medical sophistication didn't really impress me very much. (Maybe he's just trying to couch his approach in layman's terms, but his explanations of brain function on the site are amazingly reductive, as if every identifiable psychiatric symptom had a corresponding "center" somewhere in the brain!) This being said, I wouldn't be surprised if his ideas about how to work with treatment-resistant patients have really ended up helping certain people. Rather than go to Laguna Niguel and shell out $300, the best thing to do may be to find a $100 pdoc who has some of the same instincts and who similarly isn't obsessed with the rigid, slow, "cookbook-style" treatment methods that have so many patients rightfully fed up these days!

Best,
JD
"not a doctor, but I play one on the web..."

 

Re: Dr. Jensen's methods (a P.S. about pdocs)

Posted by JD on December 27, 1999, at 2:27:06

In reply to Re: Assessing Dr. Jensen's methods, posted by JD on December 27, 1999, at 1:46:51

Just a quick footnote to my message above--

When I say above that people should forego the $300 consultation with Dr. Jensen and simply try to find a more or less likeminded doctor, what I should have emphasized is "a GOOD likeminded doctor." In my view, this is everything -- there are many prescribing psychiatrists with a remarkable lack insight into what their patients go through with the medication game, or even into what medications are worth trying vs. not worth trying. The most important thing is to have a doctor who can serve as an intelligent, creative, insightful *partner* in the medication process, as opposed to one who just follows a bunch of abstract "rules" that could basically fit on an index card. Sadly, it's because so many pdocs still behave in this latter fashion that "DrJensen.com" suddenly comes along and looks so revolutionary!

Cheers,
JD

 

Re: Assessing Dr. Jensen's methods

Posted by JohnL on December 27, 1999, at 3:42:45

In reply to Re: Assessing Dr. Jensen's methods, posted by JD on December 27, 1999, at 1:46:51


I'm not sure what to think of all this either. It is refreshing on one hand to see someone attempt to lay out a definable strategy. But in reality I think it would be hard to find any local doctor willing to prescribe a handful of different drugs to try in a time period of a couple weeks based on a fax recommendation from some hot-shot pdoc in California. Especially when those recommendations were based on a telephone interview. That may indeed be credible, but it also has snake oil overtones.

With the benefit of hindsight, sampling multiple drugs in a short time would have been beneficial to me. For example, what do these drugs have in common?...
Pindolol
Buspar's metabolite
Serzone
Moclobemide
Wellbutrin
Reboxetine
Vivactil
St Johnswort
What they have in common is this:
They all drastically worsen my tinnitus.
They all made me feel worse very quickly, within hours, and did not improve when I stuck it out for weeks. I became suicidal on several of these.
And finally, they all have action on norepinephrine. That's the common denominator.

From the little I know of Jensen's methods, these reactions are "clues". And I'm assuming it would be logical to deduce that any drug that has action on norepinephrine will predictably cause me problems. And thus, my norepinephrine system is an area of the brain that needs to be totally avoided in treatment. Had I been able to try rapid samples of drugs, I would have narrowed my search in weeks or months rather than years.

Another "clue" is that Naltrexone was completely neutral with me. I assume my opiate system is not involved in any way with my symptoms, or else Naltrexone would have had some kind of impact.

Another clue is that I have responded best to serotonin drugs and/or 5HTP. So my serotonin system is definitely involved. BUT that's not the whole story. Because even though serotonin drugs help me overall, they fail miserably in relieving my primary symptom which is anhedonia/apathy. So at this point I am thinking more in terms of treating dopamine systems, either by agonism or antagonism, to see what effect that has. And simultaneously avoid any action on norepiniephrine. With that in mind, an antipsychotic is looking like a logical candidate. Something like Zyprexa which accomplishes all of these requirements. And perhaps maybe all this is missing the mark. Perhaps valproic acid or something like that is the missing link to it all.

With or without Jensen's methods, I think we all go through the same "gathering clues" approach, whether we define it as such or not. We all learn from each drug trial. I believe his approach is an attempt to speed up the clue gathering process and hasten the time to pinpoint the right drug(s). And he attempts to put some structure into the process.

But many times the miracle cure for someone didn't become evident until after a month or so on a particular drug. Jensen's methods would have bypassed that drug completely if it hadn't showed any promise in a few days. And sometimes we react very positively to a drug in just days, only to have it fizzle miserably weeks later. Jensen's methods would have temporarily misguided us into placing our bets on that drug. So like all theories and strategies, I see both pros and cons with this one. I certainly could have eliminated all drugs that worsen my tinnitus and/or my depression very quickly with his approach. But then again, it's always easy looking backwards isn't it? It's always easy with the benefit of hindsight. But not always so obvious at the moment.

Hey, this is a thought-provoking thread. Sorry to go so long here. I'm just babbling. :) JohnL

 

Re: Assessing Dr. Jensen's methods

Posted by Phillip Marx on December 27, 1999, at 8:53:53

In reply to Re: Assessing Dr. Jensen's methods, posted by JohnL on December 27, 1999, at 3:42:45

Long trials are second choice, and second step, not abandoned trick. Long trials of anything would prevent quick response trials of anything and upset any before and after baselining. Quick sensitivity tests of several probable brain "systems" also concurrently sets up a baseline from which progress metrics can be based. How many systems are involved is an important determination for therapy. Whether a traditional medicine is actually toxic is quickly determined as well. Think of the trials as a quick reaction time method instead of a Dr. ignorance disguise. Dr. Jensen has a huge case history to work with. You can actually buy his first book without an M.D. credential. I have two copies since I marked up the first one so much. I haven't given much attention to disorders not mine, but they are in there. I'm thinking about taking a course to force me to broaden my understandings though since I and all the things I broke are a moving target. The web site lists some of his many disciple doctors, are any of them local for you?

Isn't the most common medical symbol aside from the red cross a pair of intertwined snakes on a pole. His book describes up front the technology, chemistry and derivative analysis and proposed therapy tactics very UN-snakishly. As for the poor girl with the "charleton" impression, he's not one of those, just follow this thread. A third will get really better right away since not much is really wrong with them after all that an on target-diagnosis decision tree check-up would miss first time. A second third will need to shed some or a lot of mis-medication after-effects to get through the masking and side effects to the root causes and corrective or therapeutic therapies. Getting some secondary problems under control often exposes underlying causes for what they are. The last third will just get a head start hoping next year's medicines will have something for them without having to go through all the legacy medications again. Dr. Jensen has written in his book the sequences that are chosen to eliminate (presuming functional renal clearance times) interactions of so many quick trial medications safely, which I might add, are tried at very low doses initially, to avoid all threat of misery so common to medicine trials.

Phillip Marx
PhilMarx@net999.com

 

Can't find disciple docs list

Posted by Morc on December 29, 1999, at 13:24:34

In reply to Re: Assessing Dr. Jensen's methods, posted by Phillip Marx on December 27, 1999, at 8:53:53

> The web site lists some of his many disciple doctors, are any of them local for you?

Where's the list, dude?


 

Re: Can't find disciple docs list

Posted by Phillip Marx on December 30, 1999, at 12:17:36

In reply to Can't find disciple docs list, posted by Morc on December 29, 1999, at 13:24:34

http://www.drjensen.com/book.html

I think the list of endorsing doctors was longer and narrower spectrum on a previous site iteration. Due to feedback, the KISS (keep it simple stupid) balance IS better. He doesn't intend to re-create a NIMH-scale web-document needing a multi-million dollar annual maintenance budget. He's getting a new edition on paper for actual doctors-in-training first. His current edition (190 pages) is for practicing doctors as well as patients.

His site gives his email address (mj@DrJensen.com). Ask him for someone local by email if you need to. It would be handy to have your medical “relevants” ready and pre-proof-read for instant email. Every successful doctor has a diagnostic voice stress analyzer (VSA) built into his head, so don’t try to do everything by email. Have you, or can you transcribe or scan in any former HPE (History and Physical Exam)? Interviews are shorter that way. Double-check your work. If you get your reaction history(s) mixed up in your head from sheer volume, look at the actual doctors’ records and freshen your memory. I had to go back to my doctors and get actual copies of all the stuff they did to me since all that stuff did not put me in the most reliable witness category. Avoid restarting totally from scratch unless scratch was really fumbled. He has his own diagnostic decision tree that shortcuts to the chase or else he would probably have an intake questionnaire handy on the net. Actually, I just looked, his decision tree is in his book, 190 pages of just his basics, not reasonable single-sitting net reading. He prescribes no unproven snake-oil medications. He is a better master of the exceptions-to-the-rule than anyone else I've read here will ever hope to be.

I'm studying for a couple of tests and see some statements begging responses that are just going to wait. I don’t care very much at the moment how “baiting” stirring up de”bait” is for mere debate’s sake. I’m glad to read that reason stepped in from several directions. I’m not taking time out to take care of mere “Starved-for-“Attention: Deficit Disorder”” (SADD) either. I know that there isn’t a single treatment cure for SADD, only maintenance therapy. I can and do write better when it is worth it, but it takes longer than I wish to spend with all that I am trying to cram into this week off. I have put together proposals that have won several hundred millions of dollars of research and development, even put together a paper co-presented with IBM that won a national conference top award. Such polish is just not justified here. I understand reduced functionality now and have resolved to learn more philanthropically. I wish to rejoin the race to cross-match and correlate subjective patient dialog with objective instrumentation diagnostics. Insomniacs rejoice, practical sleep diagnosis objectivity is eminent.

http://community-1.webtv.net/SYZYGIAN2/IRSNShareholder/page3.html (bottom of page).

Phillip Marx
PhilMarx@net999.com

> > The web site lists some of his many disciple doctors, are any of them local for you?
>
> Where's the list, dude?


 

Re: Can't find disciplined response

Posted by jamie on December 30, 1999, at 17:24:39

In reply to Re: Can't find disciple docs list, posted by Phillip Marx on December 30, 1999, at 12:17:36

Phillip I wish you could stand back and look at what you've written. Are you sure you aren't manic or psychotic or something? I mean, your responses are all over the map in a conglomerate of nonsensical phrases. If I wanted to show someone what manic looks like I would show them one of your responses. Are you sure you're OK? Are you always like this or is it the drugs?

 

It's like a computer CORE dump

Posted by Phillip Marx on December 31, 1999, at 2:48:27

In reply to Re: Can't find disciplined response, posted by jamie on December 30, 1999, at 17:24:39

> Phillip I wish you could stand back and look at what you've written. Are you sure you aren't manic or psychotic or something? I mean, your responses are all over the map in a conglomerate of nonsensical phrases. If I wanted to show someone what manic looks like I would show them one of your responses. Are you sure you're OK? Are you always like this or is it the drugs?


I am reluctant to exert the work it takes to do work as perfect as that which almost killed me. I was going through several pounds of coffee grounds a day to keep going before all the sleep deficit set in. You'd not believe how much better I am now, and still improving as long as I don't come up with yet another medicine tolerance.

It's like a computer core dump. As I said in a past post you may have missed on a different thread, I am combining instead of repeating responses. I don't have time now to do these the way they seem to be wanted. My real step in here was to see if I could find others like me. Apparently not. Therefore the value of demonstrating how clearly I can write and compose would be worth what? I CAN put in all the bullets and indented subparagraph numbers, well, maybe I'll show you someday. But for now, the shortest way I can say something is the only way I have time to say it. I don't have much experience generating anything shorter than 25 pages. Tersifying whole paragraphs into single sentences is deliberate.

The following shows the response I get on a Yahoo stocks monitoring site I occassionally participate on:

Phil
James Joyce???

Your Joycean style ie stream of thought style is extremely interesting and often confusing and yet informative. I enjoy reading your posts but they can be scary at times.

-----------------
James Joyce?

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22James+Joyce%22

Ha, I wish.
Ayn Rand too.
Admiration inspires inspiration and imitation, not equalization.
Scary? Loose lassos catch only air.
Terse-ifying can tier and compress a paragraph into a sentence not only lossless, but with entropy that adds the reader’s knowledge to the writer’s. Any credit is half (or more) yours.

phil
----------------------
OT: thought streaming


There’s a whole book on lateral thinking (lightly constrained or free-form thought streaming is one of it’s main tactics, commended in several IQ building/recovery texts too). Barnes and Noble carries it. Carpal Tunnel tendon friction conservation is cramping and influencing my style more than you might think, lateral thinking isn’t always voluntary. Combined (mixed AND stirred) linear and lateral thinking baits more lateral thinking because initial confusion demands reconciliation in bandwidth unplugging ways. High bandwidth (interconnect rate) evolves between un-interconnected sites craving interconnect productivity instead of bandwidth jams with dendrite growth factors and co-factors detecting the vacuum under voltage and feed on being the food (amongst other chemical symbiosis ecologies). Content addressing returning no contents results in a chemical value for the gut feeling “I know/I don’t know”. “Hope” times “I don’t know yet” chemically triggers “think” and opens a fresh file space under the content directory labeled curiosity, which can kill your multiprocessing efficiency. Lateral thinking requires and gobbles bandwidth. Inter-people communication requires compression and decompression for vocalizable bandwidth fit, playing tag with tags can be cryptic but it helps a lot. Analyzing “almost-fits” trains recognition of elusive and otherwise indescribable perfect-fits. Is my drift drifting too much?

I’m gaggling at my own cackling at how funny my inference abuse is. Reading those yahoos has done me in. Oh, no! I’ve been Yahoo’d by them, boohoo for me. Pitching back isn’t pitching in. Now I see the cycle they are in from inside the cycle.
phil
-----------------------
Phil

Your posts are like drugs. Two days without them and I am going through withdrawal. Keep me away from the methadone clinic and give us your thoughts on Microsensors and anything else you care to share with us.

Thanks,

------------------------
Phil

Thanks for the fix. Seems like you are going to be adding to your position. I don't have a clue whether the share price will be higher or lower next week, but 1999 will look like a good buying opportunity when compared to 2000. Have a nice day.


--------------------------------
Phil, Where are man, we need your input.

--------------------------------
All
Although I really enjoy Phil's posts, an EFS-1 release and a trip to the methadone clinic would suffice.

--------------------------------
Phil
welcome back...
its no wonder you can't post often. I barely have the time to READ your posts, much less write them!

 

Re: KISS

Posted by dj on January 3, 2000, at 1:20:34

In reply to Re: Can't find disciple docs list, posted by Phillip Marx on December 30, 1999, at 12:17:36

> ..Due to feedback, the KISS (keep it simple stupid) balance IS better. .. I can and do write better when it is worth it, but it takes longer than I wish to spend with all that I am trying to cram into this week off. I have put together proposals that have won several hundred millions of dollars of research and development, even put together a paper co-presented with IBM that won a national conference top award. Such polish is just not justified here. ..
> >

PM if you were half as great as you keep writing that you are in the bits and pieces of your posts I've scanned you would not find it difficult to indent but perhaps your self-stated brilliance precludes writing intelligibly. However I suspect you have very dark brown eyes because you are full of BS.

 

Re: KISS

Posted by Phillip Marx on January 3, 2000, at 13:51:42

In reply to Re: KISS, posted by dj on January 3, 2000, at 1:20:34

Test

1test
12test
123test
1234test
12345test

tabtest
tabtabtest

emphasis character test “” “” content
emphasis character test “*” + “*” “*test*” test content

Cut and paste into text box test
One [spacebar] space per number, one tab per tab

Hmmm. Zero content improvement. Objective.


Blue eyes. Does it matter. I hope you are happy with “your” eye color. Can you change the color of even one hair without cheating with dye?

Brilliance:
I keep saying it is still too much work for me. Maybe it’s not too much work for you, though you did muster only a two-sentence paragraph, hope you aren’t worn out. Maybe these demands for me to be manic are themselves manic? Maybe they are disguised demands that I prove-out their unskilled and uncertified tunnel-vision mindset diagnoses. Wrong-type forcing-functions for me. I have no factitious motivations to fulfill faulty or any other diagnoses – nothing to gain – much time to lose. I “has” been a has-been, I has, I has—means I’m not, I’m not. I remember most of the how-to-do so much work, but I sure remember how much work all that work is, and what it cost me. You are permitted to laugh at that as much as I do. Suppress any undue hysteria though, people are watching, people who think everything is a disorder, even if it is higher order (dis). I am way back up now from people joking to my face about slurred speech. But now what should I think about people in THIS forum complaining about slurred writing?

Gotta go sign up for classes this a.m. so that I can learn how to talk to ya’ all using caught-up-skilled psy-shorthand. So far, I’ve written to talk to those with my disorder, sorting for those skilled at extracting order from not-so-chaotic chaos for selfish-convenience sake. Guess I’ll have to settle for less.

Since I didn’t expect responses from individuals not specifically addressed, I didn’t try to or intend to write for all the other disorders that may be present here. Nor did I expect to find “better” those I am looking for by writing at a high(er) level. I have tried to read way too much written over, far over, my head. I’m not looking for fully functional psy-professionals to peer-relate with, suicide rate is too high. But I am signing up for classes to learn just what about and why they talk that way. Are any of you functioning well enough to sign up for such classes? The science of disorder understanding can’t be all fictious, I can’t master abstracting the abstract without specialized training. It isn’t civilized to begin to learn from scratch. Extracting what is logical from people who aren’t is not a common problem in aerospace, manglement jokes aside, it dumbfounds me still. I can sure certify that I am not psy-certified yet. Are you? I already knew I didn’t need your gracious help understanding that. All this just reinforces my deep-set desires to physiologically objectify diagnoses with instrumentation. That will, once atypicals are typified, separate the malingering factitious from the treatable.

Just what disorders am I trying to talk to here. Can I look on a poster list and look up what is officially wrong with YOU and compare that to what you perceive is actually wrong with you? Which electronically discernable symptoms would you use to dispute the therapy course you are in?

You all seem to think that state-of-the-art diagnosis has failed you. Robin Williams, last night in “Awakenings”- in a relatively low-key, but vivid to me way , asked himself “why aren’t all these atypicals amounting to something typical after so much time?” (Imprecise quote.) The medical profession exhibits a full spectrum of numbness to the same frustrations. They fix what they can fix and let God do the rest. But they continue to rustle and wrestle in the dark with the “rest of it” the same as us. Secondary deduction is hinting to me that “you” ALL are atypical. None of you seem satisfied with “typical” treatment. If typical treatment were sufficient for you, you could be expected to be elsewhere. Maybe atypicals are more prevalent than I thought. How many of you would like to be wired to an EEG Tri-Corder that would fix the disassociation of those assessing you?

> PM if you were half as great as you keep writing that you are in the bits and pieces of your posts I've scanned you would not find it difficult to indent but perhaps your self-stated brilliance precludes writing intelligibly. However I suspect you have very dark brown eyes because you are full of BS.

What color does such exhibited antagonistic frustration look like in your eyes?

pm

 

Re: Site discards formatting

Posted by Phillip Marx on January 3, 2000, at 14:17:06

In reply to Re: KISS, posted by Phillip Marx on January 3, 2000, at 13:51:42

> Test
>
> 1test
> 12test
> 123test
> 1234test
> 12345test
>
> tabtest
> tabtabtest
>
> emphasis character test “” “” content
> emphasis character test “*” + “*” “*test*” test content
>
> Cut and paste into text box test
> One [spacebar] space per number, one tab per tab
>
> Hmmm. Zero content improvement. Objective.
>

See???????
The cut and paste operation from Word discards spaces, tabs, and characters < and *

You have misplaced anger.

pm

 

You, PM, discard formatting, wit and courtesy...

Posted by dj on January 3, 2000, at 15:19:15

In reply to Re: Site discards formatting, posted by Phillip Marx on January 3, 2000, at 14:17:06

> See???????
> The cut and paste operation from Word discards spaces, tabs, and characters
> You have misplaced anger.
>
> pm

Maybe your initials should be PMS because you are a pompous, arrogant, self-inflated pain to whom my frustration is rightfully directed. Attempting to make sense of your inflated run-on rhetoric not only strains my bright blue eyes, but my imagination as well. I don't usually personally diss individuals on-line but when I attempt to read the solid lumps of twaddle that you are too self-important to edit to readability my blue eyes turn red as does my temper.

You might find it instructive to read a bit of Mark Twain (a genuine communicator) who once wrote that if he had more time he'd send a postcard. He also wrote that man is the only animal that blushes or needs to, which if you had any sense of decorum is what you would be doing.
Up here in Canada we have our share of BS, however it all emanates from hype artists, like you -- the P.T. Barnums of the world!

 

Speaking of Courtesy

Posted by Noa on January 3, 2000, at 15:41:55

In reply to You, PM, discard formatting, wit and courtesy..., posted by dj on January 3, 2000, at 15:19:15

I am really uncomfortable with the mud slinging that was started in this thread. DJ, from what I can tell, you started the mud slinging. Why? Yes, Philip Marx has posted a number of rambling and somewhat incoherent posts, and he strikes me as quite manic. But I don't have to read every word he writes. If you are annoyed by his rambling, just don't read it. There is no reason to start name calling and such. Why get so personally insulting? One of the things I like about this place is that is generally very civil. That is why it hurts me to see you two throwing insults at each other.

 

Re: Speaking of Courtesy

Posted by juniper on January 3, 2000, at 16:47:07

In reply to Speaking of Courtesy, posted by Noa on January 3, 2000, at 15:41:55


May i begin the "wave" for noa?

something that makes this site a welcome and comforting place to return is the kindness and understanding extended by babblers.
i know none of you. but i automatically give the benefit of the doubt to each of you...all i know is that you have had problems and are searching for the answers (isn't this all of us?). i know that in the thick of these problems people can say some things that are hardly comprehensible to others, or that are just plane spiteful. it comes with the territory. please cut each other a bit of slack, and if you wish to continue with the insults and one-ups, perhaps you could e-mail one another and take such unneeded negativity out of the babble site.

juniper


>
I am really uncomfortable with the mud slinging that was started in this thread. DJ, from what I can tell, you started the mud slinging. Why? Yes, Philip Marx has posted a number of rambling and somewhat incoherent posts, and he strikes me as quite manic. But I don't have to read every word he writes. If you are annoyed by his rambling, just don't read it. There is no reason to start name calling and such. Why get so personally insulting? One of the things I like about this place is that is generally very civil. That is why it hurts me to see you two throwing insults at each other.

 

Re: You, PM, discard formatting, wit and courtesy...

Posted by jamie on January 3, 2000, at 17:11:35

In reply to You, PM, discard formatting, wit and courtesy..., posted by dj on January 3, 2000, at 15:19:15

Personally I don't think DJ did or said anything wrong. DJ was rather polite and respectful actually, albeit to the point. I happen to agree with DJ anyway, so maybe a bit of bias.

As for PM. Well, all I can say is you are way way out there in the ozone brutha. I am frightened by the power of depression and mental illness. But after reading PM's posts, I am truly genuinely terrified.

 

Yes, Speaking of Courtesy, Coherence & consistency

Posted by dj on January 3, 2000, at 19:46:59

In reply to Re: Speaking of Courtesy, posted by juniper on January 3, 2000, at 16:47:07

I am sorry if u both feel discomfited by my purposefully cutting comments, which I stand by. No I do not have to read everyone of PM's remarks and I certainly don't. However my initial interest in his comments soon waived and turned to personal outrage because of his holier than thou attitude which was quite explicit in a number of his rambling diatribes.

Point taken and noted that he seems to be living in a maniac delusion which my comments do not penetrate and that I might be better off focusing on other issues from a more positive perspective.
However, I do not think that a little pointed commentary is out of place on occassion, though I don't intend to make it a habit here.

> May i begin the "wave" for noa?
... please cut each other a bit of slack
>
> juniper
>
DJ, from what I can tell, you started the mud slinging. Why?... If you are annoyed by his rambling, just don't read it. There is no reason to start name calling and such. Why get so personally insulting? One of the things I like about this place is that is generally very civil. That is why it hurts me to see you two throwing insults at each other.

 

Re: Speaking of Courtesy, dj and pm

Posted by JT on January 3, 2000, at 22:54:14

In reply to Yes, Speaking of Courtesy, Coherence & consistency, posted by dj on January 3, 2000, at 19:46:59

> I am sorry if u both feel discomfited by my purposefully cutting comments, which I stand by. No I do not have to read everyone of PM's remarks and I certainly don't. However my initial interest in his comments soon waived and turned to personal outrage because of his holier than thou attitude which was quite explicit in a number of his rambling diatribes.
>
> Point taken and noted that he seems to be living in a maniac delusion which my comments do not penetrate and that I might be better off focusing on other issues from a more positive perspective.
> However, I do not think that a little pointed commentary is out of place on occassion, though I don't intend to make it a habit here.
>
> > May i begin the "wave" for noa?
> ... please cut each other a bit of slack
> >
> > juniper
> >
> DJ, from what I can tell, you started the mud slinging. Why?... If you are annoyed by his rambling, just don't read it. There is no reason to start name calling and such. Why get so personally insulting? One of the things I like about this place is that is generally very civil. That is why it hurts me to see you two throwing insults at each other.
_____________________________________________
I don't care for this at all.
There is enough of this kind of stuff going on in the world - wouldn't it be agreed?
Why bring any more of it to ourselves in a forum where we are given the rare opportunity to enlighten one other in thoughtful, caring terms?
This type of flaming seems more appropriate in a setting OTHER than a psychological board that seems, so far at least, to be dedicated to intelligent, helpful discussions - not argument.
Save it for the courtroom, work, wherever.
Let all of us try to serve the board's integrity if for no other reason than out of due respect for what Dr. Bob is providing us...
JT
________________________________________________

 

Re: Speaking of Courtesy: apology

Posted by Phillip Marx on January 4, 2000, at 2:55:31

In reply to Re: Speaking of Courtesy, dj and pm, posted by JT on January 3, 2000, at 22:54:14

Darn, registration, even telephone class registration is on hold for a “Y2K contingency week.” Their website should have said so. I missed last month since I went in their last day, which was my first convenient day off, only to discover that it was an un-announced half-day for them. Crowding the deadlines (AKA procrastination) strikes again. Such matriculation difficulties may help me get in even this late due to displaced competition for classes though, seed for hope. My sympathies go out to all those secretaries who have to live with so many appointment “dis”-appointments. I’m not depressed, never been so diagnosed, that turn of phrase “is” funny to me.

Now what? Even demonstrating that the transcription process discards formatting is angering? Why? Is gleaning a lost art? It would have been more fun to stay at work late tonight than to come home to this. I’m not married, I don’t have to think that such sweet talk is what it isn’t. I have heard people very affectionately use the worst language possible on each other. But these displays of real anger are about nothing except frustration with care I’m not trained or trying to provide. Please, you know who, show your therapist what you wrote (shouldn’t take long) and report back.

Thanks Noa, thanks juniper. I don’t like any turn of this towards debate or confrontation. I’ve heard it said that he who throws the most mud loses the most ground. Though I am trying to regain ground, mud isn’t the type I am after, I am only trying to recover my own lost ground. My search for sense doesn’t make enough sense to them, dealing with depression isn’t my skill, I hear I’m not alone, it’s a difficult skill to achieve. Patience please(!!!!!) while I apply some diligence to correcting that academically. A lot of patience, it will take several semesters, and even then I will still be far short of what anyone with a Masters would know. I wish I had taken time out to get a Masters long ago, que sera. My success rate has always been higher for the more easily achievable goals. “For debate’s sake” is only for the sake of useless friction to me. I so classify it. Debate is NOT my goal. Discovery is. I apologize for my slurred writing with apologetic facts, facts of substance, facts of personal deficit. Apologies without substance are….? Substanceless? My apology isn’t an empty one. I would like bygones to be byes gone bye-bye. If reading my writing doesn’t make them think “Hey, that’s me” then let’s part ways. They should go their ways, and I’ll go mine. Que sera.

I exercise the envelopes of concepts I am discussing with as little periphery omission as practical. Not paper envelopes, but boundary envelopes like flight envelopes. Not flighty thinking, but aerobatic thinking. Not dwelling in the depths of the valleys of life, but flying peak-to-peak. That means the ups, the downs, the positives and the negatives, the lefts and rights, the complements and the opposites, using temporal and spatial coordinates and selected tie-in references where convenient. Tied in, not separated and isolated with/by multiple paragraphs. Sometimes I settle for a very complex summary sentence instead of several pages. Sometimes I settle for a very complex paragraph instead of tons of pages. Point, point, counterpoint, concessions, punch-line (or anecdote). This apparently unsuccessful but nevertheless attempted verbal agility is meant to be more all-encompassing than confusing. For examples used in other writings: I use ground references when flying to deter vertigo (down, up, well, sick). Peak-to-peak flying causes less eye-strain than sticking close to the ground does (up, well, sick, down). I have a seaplane rating, so I can appreciate even the lowest landmark “land” reference above an expansive and featureless sea when the compass is dud (down, up, spin, sick). Concept compass points don’t require full exercise of all scrambled combinations and permutations of sub-concepts. I’ve left a lot out. A lot of glue-talk omitted results in a lot of choppiness. I’ve probably got less than ten minutes left before this sleep medicine finishes me off for tonight. Oh woe, time to whoa, gotta close.

Not tonight, but later, I’m going to try to figure out if there is a way to understand or develop a conscious metric for the mixed trusts and trust boundaries I see for technical references. Trust boundaries and cross-tabulations. Too complex for me this moment.

My apologies to this board for my being an involuntary clumsy oaf part of whatever deeper this disruption has been about.
Good night.
pm

> > I am sorry if u both feel discomfited by my purposefully cutting comments, which I stand by. No I do not have to read everyone of PM's remarks and I certainly don't. However my initial interest in his comments soon waived and turned to personal outrage because of his holier than thou attitude which was quite explicit in a number of his rambling diatribes.
> >
> > Point taken and noted that he seems to be living in a maniac delusion which my comments do not penetrate and that I might be better off focusing on other issues from a more positive perspective.
> > However, I do not think that a little pointed commentary is out of place on occassion, though I don't intend to make it a habit here.
> >
> > > May i begin the "wave" for noa?
> > ... please cut each other a bit of slack
> > >
> > > juniper
> > >
> > DJ, from what I can tell, you started the mud slinging. Why?... If you are annoyed by his rambling, just don't read it. There is no reason to start name calling and such. Why get so personally insulting? One of the things I like about this place is that is generally very civil. That is why it hurts me to see you two throwing insults at each other.
> _____________________________________________
> I don't care for this at all.
> There is enough of this kind of stuff going on in the world - wouldn't it be agreed?
> Why bring any more of it to ourselves in a forum where we are given the rare opportunity to enlighten one other in thoughtful, caring terms?
> This type of flaming seems more appropriate in a setting OTHER than a psychological board that seems, so far at least, to be dedicated to intelligent, helpful discussions - not argument.
> Save it for the courtroom, work, wherever.
> Let all of us try to serve the board's integrity if for no other reason than out of due respect for what Dr. Bob is providing us...
> JT
> ________________________________________________

 

Re: Speaking of Courtesy: apology

Posted by Noa on January 4, 2000, at 8:14:06

In reply to Re: Speaking of Courtesy: apology, posted by Phillip Marx on January 4, 2000, at 2:55:31

Phillip,

Thanks for your apology. I must say, though, that reading your post reconfirms the impression I have had that you are indeed manic. Your thoughts seem to be hyper-accelerated and all over the place. You seem unable to stick to your topic, and instead go off in all sorts of tangents. Interesting though they may be, the tangential streams strongly suggest manic thinking.

As you begin your coursework toward a masters, you should think about seeing a psychiatrist about this mania, because it might interfere with your ability to complete your academic responsibilities. If you were to write a paper in the fashion you write your posts, I cannot imagine a professor considering it a well-written paper. Your writing style is more like creative, stream of consciousness, manic, driven and not at all suitable to the straight, to the point style that is required in school.

 

Re: KISS

Posted by Noa on January 4, 2000, at 8:21:24

In reply to Re: KISS, posted by dj on January 3, 2000, at 1:20:34

> However, I do not think that a little pointed commentary is out of place on occassion

DJ, Pointed commentary is fine, but I have a hard time seeing the following as anything but offensive, and certainly not as "a little pointed commentary":

>However I suspect you have very dark brown eyes because you are full of BS.

 

Re: KISS and Phillip Marx

Posted by CarolAnn on January 4, 2000, at 9:45:59

In reply to Re: KISS, posted by Noa on January 4, 2000, at 8:21:24

I must say a word or two(or more). We all ramble a little now and then, and as Noa says, don't read it if you're not interested.
Actually, the first several times I read Phillip's posts, I was reminded of the way my husband use to write, and he is the most mentally healthy person I've ever known! The first time I saw one of his letters, which was describing his position responsibilities to a new boss, it was so long and convoluted that after reading it, I said to him,"Honey, *I* can't even tell what your job is from reading this and *I* know exactly what your job IS!" I have since managed, over many lessons to teach him to KISS. The point here is that some people just don't have a talent for writing succintly, and when you add in mental health problems, there is just all the more reason to have a little empathy.
That said, I also must admit, Phillip that I find myself never really understanding what you are talking about. Which is a shame because, as I read your posts, I keep having the feeling that there is "something important here, if only I could figure out what it is". I hope that you will keep trying to find a happy medium between writing the way you have to write and writing in a way that people, like me, can understand. Best wishes for this new year!CarolAnn

 

Re: KISS

Posted by dj on January 4, 2000, at 11:39:10

In reply to Re: KISS, posted by Noa on January 4, 2000, at 8:21:24

As I noted above, Noa, I was offended by PM's boastfulness about his supposed outstanding accomplishments that made him too important to take the time to edit his rambling discourses which counteract his exagerated claims.

Yes I was blunt and perhaps a bit rude and I was very tired and fed up with what I considered a lot of crap and still do. However on re-reading some of this stuff I think Jamies approach was perhaps a bit more compassionate, while questioning, which mine might have been if I was less tired and off, courtesy of ADs. So perhaps the next time I will sleep on it...

Frankly I am irritated by this whole exchange, however I will not take PMs advice and go talk it up with a therapist. I can sort my self out. I must say that I find threads of lucidity and consistency in his comments, but they are well buried amongst a lot of babble, which I do feel some empathy for as well. People including myself have questioned whether it's mania, which it may be, and it may be schizophrenic ramblings too...who knows...hopefully he can work it out with someone who has more patience than I, at this time...

> > However, I do not think that a little pointed commentary is out of place on occassion
>
> DJ, Pointed commentary is fine, but I have a hard time seeing the following as anything but offensive, and certainly not as "a little pointed commentary":
>
> >However I suspect you have very dark brown eyes because you are full of BS.

 

Re: KISS

Posted by Noa on January 4, 2000, at 14:54:28

In reply to Re: KISS, posted by dj on January 4, 2000, at 11:39:10

Thank you for responding, DJ.

 

Re: KISS

Posted by dj on January 4, 2000, at 15:49:31

In reply to Re: KISS, posted by Noa on January 4, 2000, at 14:54:28

> Thank you for responding, DJ.

Thanks for challenging me to ponder my comments & rationale, Noa.


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.