![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 7 to 31 of 71. Go back in thread:
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?
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?
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?
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
-----------------------
PhilYour 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,
------------------------
PhilThanks 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!
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.
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
12345testtabtest
tabtabtestemphasis character test “” “” content
emphasis character test “*” + “*” “*test*” test contentCut and paste into text box test
One [spacebar] space per number, one tab per tabHmmm. 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
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
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.
>
> pmMaybe 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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
________________________________________________
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
> ________________________________________________
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
Posted by Phillip Marx on January 4, 2000, at 17:48:38
In reply to Re: KISS and Phillip Marx, posted by CarolAnn on January 4, 2000, at 9:45:59
> 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!CarolAnnThanks 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.
20 hrs/wk), that’s mostly to make room for learning well what I want to learn in classes that favor income re-increases. Reserves appreciate positive cash flow as well.
Yahoo. I’ve just been invited to the Eagle Scout’s Court of Honor to bestow Scouting’s highest rank upon my nephew. Normally I don’t read my mail before work. Yahoo, I did today.pm
Posted by Phillip Marx on January 4, 2000, at 17:52:27
In reply to Re: KISS and tell, posted by Phillip Marx on January 4, 2000, at 17:48:38
Something gutted my last response. Thanks CarolAnn. Happy medium's must be moderated at the reader's end. But as I fumble on:
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.
20 hrs/wk), that’s mostly to make room for learning well what I want to learn in classes that favor income re-increases. Reserves appreciate positive cash flow as well.
Yahoo. I’ve just been invited to the Eagle Scout’s Court of Honor to bestow Scouting’s highest rank upon my nephew. Normally I don’t read my mail before work. Yahoo, I did today.pm
Posted by Phillip Marx on January 4, 2000, at 18:02:34
In reply to Re: KISS and tell2, posted by Phillip Marx on January 4, 2000, at 17:52:27
Looks lke an old mainframe editor problem eating up all my formatting characters. I'll track through the FAQs later. Manual space paragraphs for now.
-Skip-reading is best for some of you, skip-it reading is best for others. This is only peak-to-peak writing. I skip a lot. I’ve no intention or sufficient skill to be a novella-ist. Everybody criticizes the critics the most. But the following demonstrates my difficulties with KISS that I am very much aware of.
-Reading back, I see one of the problems. The threads aren’t in chronological order, except within sub-threads. I wasn’t aware of the scale of the site work, admirable work in progress, until my scale of work proved embarrassingly inadequate. When I stepped in, (gotta watch where I step, and whether I land running or slipping in the mud) I wandered through whichever topic seemed most relevant first. This was not von-Neumann linear. It was exploring: discovery. As threads seemed to insert themselves and grow their own dendrites, so did the distance between what I said and what I should have said. Anyone, including me, who started at the top thread items and worked down, was starting to get answers before questions. I wasn’t necessarily using much linear thinking in the first place, but the distortion via chrono-displacement wasn’t all mine. Being oriented as to time and place requires a lot in each place. Since I added to whichever thread I was on, presuming and not regurgitating what I said last, elsewhere, the train of thought got woefully separated. The thread list was small when I started. If I had written for what size the month’s thread((s)-cubed) ended up as, I would have been better paying three extra bucks a month for a personal home-page site to keep it all together on.
-Doing long reports, proposals and research papers allows one to defer the detailing of the details to the details section. The introduction section has the luxury of saying that it will all soon be explained in the following sections. The summary recollects highlights of the details (peak-to-peak) and justifies the collection of all the details with the result or at least what the benefit of a given result would be, often in advancing even one more, not yet really tangible, hypothesis. The abstract tries to do all three in a single paragraph. Abstracting is the most difficult to make stand-alone. All the points of view incorporated in a given document are often crammed into a single sentence that is virtual gibberish to anything but a resource search engine. They are often written as bait to get you to buy and read the details. That .01% of the words is used to magnify the sense of the need for the 99.99%, which is a deliberate deficit catering to anyone’s emotional response to superficial or real supply and demand.
-My writing in abstract form without promise of details could sound like bait in a lake without fish, or a carrot on a stick out of reach. Collapsing all those bulleted paragraphs into a single sentence in prose, playing on words and thought-rhyme to maximize memorability, doesn’t seem to be standing well alone. Dictionary grade inflection marking would help the readability a lot, though probably not be received well. It took me long enough to write that .01%, I can’t write the 99.99% in this lifetime and it seems foolish to me to try, especially before I take the most reasonable seeming classes. It’s more important for me to learn to make sense of this stuff first than to try to make sense without it. I’m not writing post-class theses here, and I think it is yet very important for me not to. Abstracts, especially abstracts of abstracts, can be like abstract art. Some can be beautiful and some can be ugly, yet artistic in some difficult to discern way.
-I am leaving out all the map phrases for all the issues I skirt (“on the one hand” “on the other hand” “on the plus side” “on the negative side” “in contrast to”) since it speeds writing, though it slows reading as the reader must decompress the thoughts. Writing to an audience I wasn’t intending complicates terminology and style synchronization. I was getting a lot of money to perfect stuff the hard way. Working for free should be free for me too. Working free of the details in just abstracts that would be totally non-abstract to those I am looking for isn’t deliberately rude. It’s just a search engine choice. I am trying to keep the big pictures and the little pictures together so I write picture-in-picture. Molecules have complex bonding links, so do my paragraphs.
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.-Single topic, single topic, just how does one create a single, really single topic? Sounds luxurious. Several people seem to be parroting monotonic (not monotonous, but single-tone (tome)) thinking style propaganda. That might be a conservative, stress-lowering, safer way to think while in a hampered, recovery state. KISS is a therapy (not to be confused with KISSing, which is also great therapy). Getting back to real life will mean re-assuming complexities, running from complexities is a disorder only tolerated and imposed by therapy. I am a details person, though one of those details has always been keeping all the details together, details scavenging and details dumping are part of it. Tangents are really just straight lines that don’t necessarily intersect the shapes in more than one place. It’s an invention for geometry’s sake, for the description of geometrical shapes as well as geometric ideas, a simplification convenience in spite of it’s own complexity. Tangent writing styles are necessary else sufficient dissertation requires calculus to describe every infinitesimal point (and intangible functions are really messy). Cartoons show thoughts as clouds (not just cloudy thinking) and my paragraphs have volume, too much volume, even when compressed into just trying to describe (or touch, scratch) the “surface” of each idea. Condensing and distilling is necessary else too many paragraphs becomes a worse problem. My Y2.1K think thing is just two pages short of 100 pages in 10 pt. as terse as I can get it. Getting 20 to 40 proposals completed in a single shift of 80+ long terrible hours straight minimum, has trained me to think fast, accelerate through all topic turns and not burn out the brakes. It was my job as manager to keep “all over the place” securely intact. That was never a period of time I could have stayed up for with less reason, or with less stress. I had to consolidate all topics simultaneously (keeping them separate only in my head) and not lose or misplace even one tangent, and try to master the decision difficulties of determining what stays and what doesn’t under military contract deadlines where real lives were at stake. The Gulf War was a month shorter just because of one of the “littlest” programs I worked on, and casualties expected (budgeted) by our side were decimated, the right kind of decimated. People outside aerospace haven’t the tiniest inkling how many times aerospace has already saved countless lives, innocent ones too. If you think surgeons have stress, imagine what ABM people go through. Hundreds of millions of lives are at stake with each tiny mistake. Everyone IS everyone else’s keeper and glad of it. My workplace pace was chosen by myself and my employers to be as far opposite to care-free as humanly possible. Aerospace has filled many hospitals and cemeteries with it’s cold-war wounded and killed. And we can’t get any respect for it either, how does that guy say that like a joke, it’s a joke that it’s a joke. When we try to convince ourselves that it all was worth it, we get pictures of people who took 8-cent bullets shoved in our faces. Shrinks and philosophers may bewail the balance of lifestyle, but they have a right to their lifestyle choices protected by those who equip our protectors. It’s my turn now to step back from such rigid requirements, or at least relax to a recreational level, if I can ever get back up to a level that’s fun. I need to spend the time instead on generating income that doesn’t cost me personally so much.
-I could break all this up into indentured sub-paragraphs, but the site “left-justifies” everything. A bunch of smaller paragraphs just looks like so many endlessly rippling sand dunes. Maybe if I next time double return between major thought blocks, hmmm, I can avoid paragraph numbering maintenance obnoxious-ness. Dr. Bob?
>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.
-I’d like to get my Masters, but I’m only building up some non-core electives now, low stress, self-beneficial, and, except for the psy-stuff, with income potential as isolated from critical “company and country life-dependent” scheduling as humanly possible. If my stocks recover half as much as half the analysts predict, then I’ll be an 800-pound gorilla with my time and get several Masters and maybe a Pastors. I’m not going to spend anything that hasn’t panned out yet though. No more of those mandatory work overtimes that eventually turn into class withdrawals or incompletes that revert to something worse on the transcripts. Since I “concentrate” on academics in ways that look manic, I get practically all straight A’s. My first try through college, though I made honor roll, I crashed from starvation after the scholarship money ran out (VietNam War era). When I returned to finish my Bachelor’s, I was well funded by Hughes (they paid for it 100%) and well-fed. I got almost straight A’s. I only got one B, and even that was a B+, my computer died and kept dying until replaced during that class. I was forced to do the video-presentation with a visibly jury-rigged computer. Self-assessment the class was called, do I still sound like I spent most of that time re-fixing my computer? I am still my own biggest blind spot. I now have several back-up computers from that lesson. I have gotten straight A’s ever since my breakdown, too. I can prove that’s not a delusional statement. I do well academically, always have, at least when I eat more than mind-starving American rice. I took a year of medical, advanced medical and legal transcription and human anatomy and terminology in the early part of my recovery since I thought I was going to be stuck home by the medications, with a slurred appearance not very work compatible. The dangerous-to-exclude tangents lawyers, doctors, corporate and government officials have to deal with would really make you dizzy here, even if you were on, what’s it called, is it piracetam? Logical tangents are essential, especially those on check-lists. Loophole containment, though hated, rules. Just read any APA publications, no single vector stuff there. Though I learned a lot, destiny doesn’t point to transcription for me since I never could get my typing speed back up to speed (lucky? Or too bad? TBD). Funny, that transcription professor just this second e-mailed me an invitation for lunch. Besides, Dr. Jensen has me far more functional than I was then. I can no longer type near 100wpm, skill atrophy, carpal tunnel flash pain cross-compensating un-coordination, I dunno. I can only muster short bursts of 50wpm, even after sticking out a speed refresher course, which still gave me an A for merely improving 10wpm. That one was a hard A. I graduated B.S.B.A. “With Distinction” - one of only 28 out of 800 graduates that year to do so. Not delusional, I have the diploma and the graduation video to prove it. I’m mostly the same now as then, except I’m more cautious and conservative (self-conservative) now. I just looked through that video a few weeks ago trying to find the clips of our nuclear reactor room test pulse glows for my Y2.1K thing. I’m still me. My academics are not hurt by my writing. BS professors, (oh no) like full scope work even more than BA professors do. Or is that where the difference is, the specialist incentive? I cram a lot into my writing. I sure don’t have time to build a page full of footnotes. I am a cross-technology consolidator by trade. Something has to give, or my body will give in again. I’ll sacrifice the low end before I’ll sacrifice the top end. Research proposals are only bids to fill in the low end anyway, maybe I’m conditioned to wait until someone is willing to pay for it to give all the grunt work. Mensa loves streams-of-thought, why is it so poorly respected here? I know that a lot of the early bipolar literature sounds like a lot of dumb (outside the problem type ignorance) people trying to understand intermittently gifted people and why they couldn’t stay that way and crashed from self-disappointment so bad. The new writers are too much smarter now, no trace of respect for bipolars now, history is full of history-worthy inspired bipolars, but I don’t see much in the age since bipolar medicine. Is nothing above average not abnormal now? Where is the technical source for all this contempt for broad thinking coming from? I hear it from so many sources that I wonder what the real base source reference is. Where is the core authority reference (dummy?) who is so paranoid about how neural networks work that they malign bursts of efficiency and intuition with so much psy-disorder propaganda? All of us go to school to increase our mental capabilities. Is any such success such a malady? Where has all the flag waving for personal development gone? Is above normal as bad as below normal because it metrically rates a “standard” deviation from norm equally? Norm should not be a goal unless it is up. Norm means statistical average, not what “normal” should really be as high as. Things that skew the gaussian “norm” up should be the norm. Is it really right to be so digital about people in an analog world? Without so much disease holding down the norm, what would the “average” norm be? Imagine how high-functioning (and how much high-er functioning, one-sigma maybe, may be, maybe: that’s a ha-ha, not a typo)) normal would be without disease (sorry, not time to re-word now, but the drift is drifting there somewhere). We all, like axons, find our place(s), and touchstones. Someone will Messianically (axonically) re-solve (thereby resolving) this problem soon, I hope.
-Last thought before going to work: I got my work done (“pure”-itanical work ethic, purged by fire: ethics laser surgery), at significant expense to my health. My last company’s stock value rose 10,000% during my tenure there and they did not like my leaving, they covered overdue dental care after I left. I’m really sorry that their value dropped 9,000 of those 10,000% after I left, especially since I had such a nice stock-bonus plan, which they graciously helped me to hold out till the last day for best vesting of. They graciously accommodated me and my medicinally depressed and suppressed productivity for a year after the breakdown. They trained me at their own expense for that demotion to email, inter and intra-network administrator - they sent me to Vermont (IBM co-facility, the largest single-story building in the country) for two weeks to set up a dual Lantastic-Novell network. But medicine accumulates. I had to quit when I started stopping for red lights in the middle of intersections. Now I treat too much work for no pay as a red light, strike that, stop sign. I’d love to flesh out what I write again. I just can’t afford it. I have to put myself higher on my priority list than I like or I’ll get totally useless again. Don’t most of us have the water sloshing over our gunnels too often? Me too, still. I’m not going to work myself up to needing so much medication to knock me down for a healing spell again voluntarily.
-If I start working for myself instead of working for someone else, then maybe “my” value will go up 10,000% in 6 years. There sure is more room up than down for me now. I have to keep it smart smartly or keep it too simple stupidly. Catch-22. Darned if I say too much, and darned if I say too little. Only recourse is to do a little of all three, since even the middle is complained about so much. Going on and on is what things written not-too-tersely looks like. I for sure can’t take even this much time after classes start, even though I’m only working part time (>20 hrs/wk), that’s mostly to make room for learning well what I want to learn in classes that favor income re-increases. Reserves appreciate positive cash flow as well.
-Yahoo. I’ve just been invited to the Eagle Scout’s Court of Honor to bestow Scouting’s highest rank upon my nephew. Normally I don’t read my mail before work. Yahoo, I did today.
pm
Posted by Noa on January 4, 2000, at 20:31:52
In reply to Re: KISS and tell3, posted by Phillip Marx on January 4, 2000, at 18:02:34
Still, Phillip, your writing is not focused. You have difficulty focusing directly on the topic and you throw in too much tangential thought. You are very good at rationalizing why you do this. Your rationalizations reflect the fact that you are intelligent, but I believe your rationalizations still do not explain away the impression many of us seem to be getting of you, that you are suffering from acute mania. I think consulting a psychiatrist is in your best interest.
Posted by CarolAnn on January 5, 2000, at 8:16:57
In reply to Re: KISS and tell3, posted by Noa on January 4, 2000, at 20:31:52
Noa, I think we are barking up the wrong alley. We have both written posts with the intention of being "nice" to Mr. Marx, and he just keeps missing the point(I don't think he even read my post completely).
I know I probably shouldn't be writing a personal note here, but I don't know where else to express my feelings. And sometimes you just gotta express or you'll explode, you know?
Anyway, as far as Phillip Marx is concerned, my advice to myself is:
"CarolAnn, just don't go there". It'll save me alot of frustration, which I can definitely do without! Final words on the subject:"Farewell and Godspeed, Mr. Phillip Marx".
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Medication | Extras | FAQ
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.