Psycho-Babble Social Thread 306610

Shown: posts 5 to 29 of 29. Go back in thread:

 

Re: Is depression a disease? SLS

Posted by Dinah on January 30, 2004, at 7:33:47

In reply to Re: Is depression a disease?, posted by SLS on January 28, 2004, at 19:34:13

I think those type of studies are fascinating. I've been especially interested in the research for the biological basis for Borderline Personality Disorder because it has been stigmatized as a character problem for so long.

http://www.mhsanctuary.com/borderline/siever.htm

http://www.biopsychiatry.com/acetph.htm

Whether we call it a "disease" or a biological sensitivity or whatever, it seems clear that there are biological factors that predispose us to these things. And if meds can help, or therapy can help, more power to them.

 

Re: Is depression a disease?

Posted by SLS on January 30, 2004, at 8:11:19

In reply to Re: Is depression a disease? SLS, posted by Dinah on January 30, 2004, at 7:33:47

> I think those type of studies are fascinating. I've been especially interested in the research for the biological basis for Borderline Personality Disorder because it has been stigmatized as a character problem for so long.
>
> http://www.mhsanctuary.com/borderline/siever.htm
>
> http://www.biopsychiatry.com/acetph.htm
>
> Whether we call it a "disease" or a biological sensitivity or whatever, it seems clear that there are biological factors that predispose us to these things. And if meds can help, or therapy can help, more power to them.


Thanks for posting the links, Dinah. I found the physostigmine thing particularly relavent to my condition. I recently tried taking Aricept (donepezil), a ACh cholinesterase inhibitor like physostigmine. It made me significantly more depressed very early in the trial.

It is unfortunate that the term "borderline personality disorder" has persisted for so long. I believe the name evolved many years ago when it was thought that sufferers were somewhat psychotic - borderline psychotic. Of course, there wasn't too much understood about the biological nature of some mental illnesses at the time, which left the explanations of aberrant behavior to be related to personality.


- Scott

 

Re: Is depression a disease?

Posted by Ilene on January 30, 2004, at 13:02:07

In reply to Is depression a disease? Chairman_MAO, posted by Dr. Bob on January 28, 2004, at 18:49:40

> > If you've ever wondered about this (and there's hardly a final word on the subject), I'd like to know what you think about each side of this debate:
> >
> > http://www.szasz.com/isdepressionadiseasetranscript.html
> >
> > I don't get to talk to many people face to face that are interested in this, and so I figured I'd give it a shot here.
>

I couldn't even get to the end of the debate because the Szasz camp kept changing the subject from the nature of depression to forced drugging or hospitilization.

If you believe that in order for a disease to be "real" it must cause a physiological or anatomical abnormality, then you are placing way too much faith in medical technology. For example: I broke my pelvis a few years ago. The diagnosis was made by x-ray. It was a hairline fracture; there was nothing to see on the outside of my body. (I had hardly any bruising, perhaps because I was lying on nice cold snow and ice until the ambulance came.) If I had had the same fall before x-rays had been invented, would my pain and inability to walk been attributed to a social construct? Probably not. The diagnosis would have been made from my history--a bad fall, pain in my hip, I could wiggle my toes but asserted the pain was too bad to walk. (There's no objective way to test someone else's pain.)

The argument about objective abnormalities in psychiatric disorders is becoming moot as brain imaging technology improves, anyway.

Ilene

 

Ironically...

Posted by Racer on January 30, 2004, at 17:43:50

In reply to Re: Is depression a disease?, posted by Ilene on January 30, 2004, at 13:02:07

I read the entire debate -- which was not easy to find, because both the doctors in the Szasz camp only put parts of it on their websites and the original transcript is buried on the NCPA website. If you read the *entire* debate, you'll find that the good points from the Szasz camp are almost entirely hidden by their vitriolic rhetoric and their refusal to debate rather than proclaim.

Seems to me, this is a question of Faith and Belief, rather than a valid debate.

For what it's worth, though, both sides raised some questions that seemed valid to me. The Szasz Section has a debatable point in questioning whether calling Clinical Depression a medical disease results in medication to the exclusion of psychotherapy. (The only one on that side I didn't consider a total and complete crank or wacko, by the way, was the guy who kept insisting that he wanted to see the pathology. I think he's misguided, but not a crank.) The other side, though, had a much stronger point in the observation that many diseases are described -- and successfully treated -- before the pathology is fully understood. (For that matter, aspirin was used for centuries before anyone figured out how it worked.)

The two main issues I had with the entire debate transcripts were these:

1. Both sides lost track of their arguments. The Yes Men allowed themselves to be dragged into the murkiness the No Guys created. The No Guys didn't so much propose premises, as willfully obscure the issues involved on both sides.

2. This debate was not really about depression as a physiological process, it was about the politics of treating mental illness. Szasz has spent decades saying that there is no such thing as mental illness, that all of those conditions described by other physicians as mental illness are actually irresponsibility and flawed character. He does have an agenda.

By the way, I would have loved to moderate a debate like that -- provided I had the leeway to stop both sides from yanking the focus away from the issue at hand. In fact, I would love to be involved with an argument of that sort, as long as I had the chance to point out EVERY logical fallacy I saw.

Thanks for linking to this. Reading the entire transcript was enlightening -- especially seeing how the Good Doctors abridged the versions they posted on sites supporting their own views.

 

Is depression a disease?

Posted by 8 Miles on January 30, 2004, at 18:59:27

In reply to Is depression a disease? Chairman_MAO, posted by Dr. Bob on January 28, 2004, at 18:49:40

I read through the linked "discussion", I feel that it very quickly unraveled into illogical banter. How does one define a disease? It cannot be based soley upon pathology. How can a pathologist determine a person's personality by looking at a dead corpse's brain tissue? How about the person's religious beliefs? IQ? Beliefs, ideology, interests, favorite ice cream? A pathologist cannot determine ANY of that by looking at a body's brain tissue. So, is this to say that person, while living, did not have these beliefs, feelings, loyalties, creeds and emotions while alive? Can a pathologist look at brain tissue and know that this person loved his/her little girl so much that he/she would willingly die to protect the little girl? NO! NO! NO! NO! Using the logic of the "no pudding no proof" camp who claim that there is no scientic data to support the defintion of depression as a disease, then no one EVER had a personality while alive. Strangely, they use the arguement that depression is just feelings and outlook on life i.e a PERSONALITY. But, using their own defintion of only pathological evidence can DX a disease, how can they prove that the person had a PERSONALITY? There is no tissue to explain that. Further, they repute the chemical balance therory as a pharse, because there is no documented proof that chemicals in the brain are "out of balance".
HA! Maybe not on a corpse, but what about in a living brain? Blood flow in the brain related to emotional changes has been CLEARLY documented to exist and affect the brain tissue using CT, PET scans as well as MRI films (or live-action video). One of the most hotly debated issues in psychology-psychiatry is ADHD (which, by the way, is NOT just for kids anymore as I have it in my mid 40's). Insurance companies, schools, religious groups and physcians/clinicians all challenge the other's position based mostly upon fear and money. "My, we can't be giving little 7 year old Susie Amphetamines! How terrible!" Does it resolve the issues caused by the "disease"? Yes, it does. Since neurotransmissions and neuronal reuptake of the chemicals made by the body that the brain uses to communicate with the body, have really only been explored and examined during the past 50 years, the science is, technically, still rather "new". Does anyone WANT to have OCD or bipolar disorder? Is it something that they just convince themselves that they have one day because they are bored with their current world? That's really a rhetorical question, but NO! Can someone collapse into their mind to escape a tragic episode? Well, yes they can, but I still feel that is the brain's way of shutting down due to an overload of emotion. OK, when the person who is currently given a general DX of major depression, have their symptoms successfully treated by medicines (and perhaps therapy) just falling under a voodoo curse? Hmmmm....if that's the case, how can a person who presents to an ER in a psychotic state be "calmed down" by Ativan or Haldol? Just drug induced handcuffs? When I cannot concentrate enough to finish a simple task, and am then given Amphetamines (which allow my mind to focus so that I CAN complete the task) am I just reacting to positive suggestion from my Pdoc that this will help me? Well, placebos can work, and a "witch doctor" can make a person believe that they are ill or cured. I cannot totally dismiss off-hand those phenomena, nor adequately explain HOW or WHY they work. If you want to see some interesting data, cruise through a PDR or some other drug info given with the med. VERY, VERY often the statement "while the exact action of this drug cannot be described, but is THOUGHT to....." That basically says, "well, this medication treats sleep disorder, but we don't know how or why". How many of the Drs. and counselors in the posted "conversation" use or recommend many medications that they themselves cannot explain the pharmacokinetics that make the meds "work"? "Can you explain the quality of your pain"?......"it hurts really bad". What sort of DX tool is that? "Do you feel sad, have feelings of hopelessness, trouble sleeping, eating too much or too little, persistant driving thoughts, suicidal ideation, restlessness, aggitation, unable to complete simple mental tasks, memory problems,lethargy, unexplained pains, strange fears, obsessive thoughts, fear of meeting people or going outside,fear of unclean objects and germs, guilt, feelings of inferiority, uncontrolled anger and hostile outbursts"? Well, I guess the person who answered "yes" to many of those "feelings" just wants to be that way, out of choice because it is part of their personality, part nature part nurture. Lack of moral turpitude. Oh, but for some reason we can't figure out, this medicine here will make your personal emotional weakness better!

Well, guess I've rambled long enough, but I guess it's just my chosen personality and feelings...nothing more.

8

 

Hold on there, Pardner! 8 Miles

Posted by Racer on January 30, 2004, at 19:46:26

In reply to Is depression a disease?, posted by 8 Miles on January 30, 2004, at 18:59:27

The Szasz team in that debate never said that personality didn't exist because it couldn't be found in a pathology text. That guy -- the only one on that side of the debate I thought was simply misguided rather than an evil crank, by the way -- was saying that depression could not be a disease state because physical diseases can be discerned during autopsy. The premise of that argument is wrong, but as a logical argument, it is valid.

Of course, you're absolutely correct to say that what shows up in a corpse is the only standard against which to measure a disease. History is full of diseases recognised, described, and treated long before the pathology could be literally seen. Many diseases can be seen on autopsy only through the artifacts of their symptoms, even today.

I'll say again what I said in my other post on this thread: read the *entire* debate transcript and then compare it with the versions on Szasz and Whatshisname's websites. That will show you that this was not an honest debate, both sides got pulled off topic and off balance, and the result was insulting, appalling, and generally Not Useful.

OK, my rant is over. Since I agree with your basic position on this, why did I bother to post anything at all? Here's why: the debate we're currently debating here fell apart when the participants in it allowed their emotional responses to override their reason. Rather than responding to the other sides arguments, they used attacks, Straw Men, and insults to try to sway the engagement to their side. A well reasoned argument, without rancor or attack, can persuade a lot more undecided votes on any issue. Listening to an argument in its entirety before responding is usually a more effective debate tool.

(Sorry, politics is getting to me, and I'm starting to get really hung up on critical reasoning as the only hope this country has. It's starting to color everything I do. You just got caught in the crosshairs this time. Nothing personal. And if you read the entire transcript, the guys saying "no" managed to destroy their own arguments in the end, through their reactionary vitriol. Almost makes you believe in karma, eh?)

 

Re: Hold on there, Pardner!

Posted by gabbix2 on January 30, 2004, at 20:53:20

In reply to Hold on there, Pardner! 8 Miles, posted by Racer on January 30, 2004, at 19:46:26

I didn't have the same take on what 8 miles said.
I didn't think he claimed anyone said personality did not exist. I took from his post that if one theorizes that what is diseased can only be defined as what is tangible in brain tissue; then by that same theory the nuances and affectations that make up our personalities must not exist because thus far, there is no way of defining them in them in the physiology of the brain after death.

 

Huh... gabbix2

Posted by Racer on January 30, 2004, at 21:58:46

In reply to Re: Hold on there, Pardner!, posted by gabbix2 on January 30, 2004, at 20:53:20

> I didn't have the same take on what 8 miles said.
> I didn't think he claimed anyone said personality did not exist. I took from his post that if one theorizes that what is diseased can only be defined as what is tangible in brain tissue; then by that same theory the nuances and affectations that make up our personalities must not exist because thus far, there is no way of defining them in them in the physiology of the brain after death.

Huh, I hadn't thought of it that way. The Pathology Is The Only Criteria guy in the debate was on the Szasz bandwagon, waving the big "it's about behavior, and that's just temperament" banner, that depression isn't a disease because it couldn't be found in an autopsy because it was "only" behavioral. I read 8miles post as saying that depression was equivalent to personality, in that if it could not be found through autopsy, it must not exist. Hmm... Gotta think on that one...

And, however 8miles meant it, the doctor is wrong, and we're right. I'm just focussed on Logic right now, and typing too much...

Thanks for the eye opener. I'll read the post again, and see if I can get my mind around it...

 

Well now..

Posted by gabbix2 on January 30, 2004, at 22:42:47

In reply to Huh... gabbix2, posted by Racer on January 30, 2004, at 21:58:46

Of course 8 miles could just jump in here anytime and tell me I'm all wrong, but that's one of the joys of fumbling your way through text communication now isn't it? ; )

 

What 8 meant

Posted by 8 Miles on January 31, 2004, at 10:07:16

In reply to Well now.., posted by gabbix2 on January 30, 2004, at 22:42:47

Yes, Gabix2.

You succinctly restated what I was "trying to say." However, I think that my post rambled on so long (like this one will) that I left room for Racer or others to think my response was indeed emotionally, and not scientifically, made. I am not trying to refute anyone's ideology, I was merely writing what I felt, while trying to employ some of the logic used by the "NO" group to defeat their own arguement. In that, I restate that if depression is just a behavioral phenonmenon (w/o bio-physiologic causality) because it cannot be classified as a disease using pathological guidelines, then personality, beliefs and values must not exist because they can not be found as a presence in brain tissue. If both are true, then every tought idea, feeling, emotion and all elements we use to define "depression", are nothing but electro-chemical responses produced soley by neurotrophins firing off to the dendrites of our neurons. So, I guess this wouldn't be a good time to enquire of the board if we have "souls".

Let the games begin!

8 Miles

 

What Racer intended 8 Miles

Posted by Racer on January 31, 2004, at 13:13:28

In reply to What 8 meant, posted by 8 Miles on January 31, 2004, at 10:07:16

First, though, a digression. I'm middle aged. I like the music of my youth. Eight Miles High is a song with a lot of resonance for me, so I've always associated that with you, and therefore to like you. If this sounds otherwise, that is only because of the limits imposed by text without body language.

Now, back to the subject at hand.

I get rambling, too, and probably didn't make myself clear. What I saw in your original post, and still see, is what looks like a logical fallacy. Here's what you wrote:

"In that, I restate that if depression is just a behavioral phenonmenon (w/o bio-physiologic causality) because it cannot be classified as a disease using pathological guidelines, then personality, beliefs and values must not exist because they can not be found as a presence in brain tissue."

Here's what I read, and excuse the length:

If pathological guidelines define disease, then depression is not a disease.

If depression is not a disease, then it is 'merely' behavioral.

Since depression has been found not to be a disease, personality -- which is also behavioral -- must not exist.

(Lemme give you a little background: the current political debate -- especially The Shrub's State of Dis Union address -- sent me back to my college Critical Thinking text. I've been putting the campaign statements into standard form for two weeks now. You just got stuck between me and my pathology, and I'm sorry about that. I promise, scout's honor, that this interaction is only based on my own issues and that I like you. I really, really like you. I'm hoping at the end of this, we'll end up both knowing we're on the same side. I already know you're right: the no guys are cranks.)

Anyway, the problem there is that at no time did anyone in the debate say that behavior did not exist. In fact, their basic argument is that depression *is* personality, as (allegedly) proven by the (alleged) fact that it could not be seen in physical pathology.

Another argument that can -- and was -- used to refute that position is easier and I think more elegant:

If disease can only be defined through post mortem pathology, no disease can be diagnosed in a living person.

Doctors do diagnose disease in living people.

Therefore, disease is not defined soley by through post mortem findings.

There's the entire NO argument torn to threads right there, just by disproving their first premise.

By the way, the abridged versions of the so called debate on the Szasz team's sites did not include the exchanges on the above argument. The Szasz crew also refused to discuss whether their argument about depression would be considered valid when applied to other diseases like arthritis or diabetes.

And I'm just really frustrated these days by the political situation out there. Like I said, I've been using my college text and putting arguments into standard form, and getting frustrated. I've also been spending far too much time at political sites. What I'm seeing at all of them, is a reaction to the other side's arguments that assumes those arguments are correct. I'm also seeing that a lot of the people who post on forums like MoveOn.org are very bright, very articulate, and just refuse to see the bigger picture. They react to the little things, and then they can't fight back when the big one hits. I know, I'm not communicating anything helpful here, but it all comes back to the newest addition to my soon to be classic: Racer's Rants To Save The Universe.

New Rant:

If The People don't learn Critical Reasoning skills, GWB will be reelected, and that will be A Very Bad Thing.

Can you see how that addition to my world view would make me jump in after your post, even though I agree wholeheartedly with your conclusion? I hope so. I'm really and truly cross my heart and hope to die not trying to start anything with anyone, just to try to explain my point of view. Even if you totally disagree with everything I've said, I hope that you understand that one point.

 

PS 8 Miles

Posted by Racer on January 31, 2004, at 13:20:24

In reply to What 8 meant, posted by 8 Miles on January 31, 2004, at 10:07:16

By the way, Szasz is not only a crank, he's a well known, long time crank. His first book came out in the early '60s, and his entire platform is based on the whole "stop whining and pull yourself up by your bootstraps. It's your own fault you feel bad" bedrock. If you read anything he's written, or even read that dang debate transcript all the way through, you'll see that he's unlikely to win any thinking converts.

What worries me, though, is that unthinking converts might wander by and get sucked in. And if there's someone on the corner yelling that Szasz is demonic, those unthinking people might just be frightened into his doorway, where he can suck them in. Those same people, uninformed and probably uninterested, might be persuaded away from this sort of crank by a soft, soothing voice and an offer of a nice hot cup of tea. Does that analogy make sense to you?

I guess I'm saying, "Can't we all just get along? Come sing Kumbaya with me, and then we'll come up with a really good coolheaded argument against The Devils..."

And I've also got the personal thing, too, since my family is from Hungary. Szasz is an Hungarian name, and I hate to think One Of Our Own is an idiotic jerk.

 

Urgh! Missed it! (last one, promise) 8 Miles

Posted by Racer on January 31, 2004, at 13:25:44

In reply to What 8 meant, posted by 8 Miles on January 31, 2004, at 10:07:16

LOL, I totally missed this part of what you posted:

If both are true, then every tought idea, feeling, emotion and all elements we use to define "depression", are nothing but electro-chemical responses produced soley by neurotrophins firing off to the dendrites of our neurons.

The point I was trying to make is that the NO guys were trying to say that depression was caused by free will, and had nothing to do with neurochemical events. Anyone who's read even the popular science magazines in the last 20 years or so knows that isn't true, right?

OK, your volley, and I'm looking forward to it.

 

Self-Control is overrated anyway 8 Miles

Posted by Racer on January 31, 2004, at 13:56:15

In reply to What 8 meant, posted by 8 Miles on January 31, 2004, at 10:07:16

Sorry, this just occurred to me:

The really sad part of the debate transcript we're talking about is that a couple of valid points from the Szasz team got buried as kindling for their ridiculous bonfire.

One of those points is that labels make it easier to discount those carrying them. Another is that many patients need more than *just* medication in their treatment, and the disease label encourages insurance companies to limit access to psychotherapy. And, lastly, that many patients improve when they can take positive steps towards recovery, rather than passively taking pills to "cure" a "disease." I do think those are valid points for discussion. I just don't think that they were presented in a manner that allowed them to be considered.

I find that very sad. If a more reasoned speaker had said something more like, "I distrust the possible responses from insurance companies to the labelling of depression as a disease, because I think it would be likely to have a negative impact on patient care," I think a lot of us might be more inclined to consider that topic. I also think it might be a good topic for discussion. It's only because they throw in all the bathwater to make sure the baby goes down the drain, too, that we react so strongly to the whole subject.

In the case of this particular debate team, I do not see them as well intentioned but misguided. I see them as three men pushing their own agenda without regard for anyone else. It is an example, though, of how many well intentioned people make mistakes that diminish the power of their arguments. For that reason, reading that transcript was a learning opportunity for me, and I don't begrudge the time it took, nor the expense of hip waders and a machete to get through it all.

There. That's my opinion, for what it's worth, and it's cheap at half the price.

 

Byrds and philosophy Racer

Posted by 8 Miles on January 31, 2004, at 18:05:16

In reply to What Racer intended 8 Miles, posted by Racer on January 31, 2004, at 13:13:28

Actually, Racer, the Byrd's song IS the derivation of my posting name. Although I might be a wee bit younger than you, I had 3 older siblings, and I DID grow up in the 60's and early 70's. Of strange coincidence, I think that the lyrics of '8 Miles High' somehow are in nexus with this discussion. If you don't mind, here they are (for those who have no clue of what we speak).

"8 miles high, and when you look down,
you'll find that it's stange than unknown.
Signs in the street, just being their own,
nowhere is there warmth to be found, among those afraid of losing their gound. Rain gray town, known for its sound, in places, small faces abound.
Round the square, huddled in storms, some laughing, some just shapless forms. Sidewalk scenes, and black limousines. Some living, some standing alone."


OK then Racer, I like you as well. There is no problem in the open exchange of opinion, and (reasonable) requests for clarification. I took no offense whatsoever to your posts to me. Except for our political divergence (which too is OK), I think we see things in the same bandwidth. I too hope that we can gain knowlege and understanding from each other,and whoever cares to join in, so that we can engage in friendly banter w/o the least fear of enraging each other (as long as Dr. Bob understands that we concur, and doesn't accuse either of us of being uncivil). In tune.

8

 

Uncivil reply 8 Miles

Posted by Racer on January 31, 2004, at 21:48:05

In reply to Byrds and philosophy Racer, posted by 8 Miles on January 31, 2004, at 18:05:16

Good, I'm glad you understood what that none of what I wrote was a personal attack.

But here's a question: why do you say that our political viewpoints differ? I thought we were on the same side, that mental illness is as real and as physical as any other recognised illness, and that we should be treated with the same respect as a diabetic, or a person with cancer or arthritis or any other illness?

Or do you mean you're {{shock}} Republican? If so, well, at least you like the Byrds...

Personally, I waver between preferring the Seeds or the Electric Prunes, but then I'm weird...

 

Re: double double quotes Chairman_MAO

Posted by Dr. Bob on February 1, 2004, at 4:08:36

In reply to Re: Is depression a disease? SLS, posted by Chairman_MAO on January 29, 2004, at 21:48:38

> If Szasz is too reactionary for you, I'd check out _Healing the Soul in the Age of the Brain: Becoming Conscious in an Unconscious World_ by Elio Frattaroli, M.D.

I'd just like to plug the double double quotes feature at this site:

http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#amazon

The first time anyone refers to a book without using this option, I post this to try to make sure he or she at least knows about it. It's just an option, though, and doesn't *have* to be used. If people *choose* not to use it, I'd be interested why not, but I'd like that redirected to Psycho-Babble Administration:

http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20020918/msgs/7717.html

Thanks!

Bob

 

Re: Uncivil reply Racer

Posted by 8 Miles on February 1, 2004, at 17:52:16

In reply to Uncivil reply 8 Miles, posted by Racer on January 31, 2004, at 21:48:05

Yes, Racer. I am a, gasp, Republican. That doesn't mean I agree with everything they spout out. As far as the deperssion:disease position, we share the same thoughts, I believe. I am not one who just votes straight party. If I thought that a Democrat would actually do a better job, I would have to vote with my conscious. However, afer Clinton's eight-year debacle (just like former D.C. Mayor. Marion Berry), well...that's just wrong to me. So if we step aside from that type of conversation, and keep it relevant to the board, I think we will get along fine!

8

 

Re: Uncivil reply 8 Miles

Posted by Karen_kay on February 1, 2004, at 18:18:08

In reply to Re: Uncivil reply Racer, posted by 8 Miles on February 1, 2004, at 17:52:16

Clinton's eight year debacle, as you claim... Ha!! And I'll not even comment on Republican Bush's actions while in the White House. What I wouldn't give to have Mr. Bill Clinton back in office. Excuse me while I walk away from this conversation entirely!

 

Can't we all just get along?

Posted by Racer on February 1, 2004, at 20:19:02

In reply to Re: Uncivil reply 8 Miles, posted by Karen_kay on February 1, 2004, at 18:18:08

Sorry, couldn't resist...

Now for a few verses of Kumbaya... or is that a Democrat song?

 

Re: Can't we all just get along? Racer

Posted by Karen_kay on February 1, 2004, at 20:46:22

In reply to Can't we all just get along?, posted by Racer on February 1, 2004, at 20:19:02

Crap, just lost my post....

Well, of course we can get along. I just had to put my opinion in. And I don't appreciate it when people talk bad about Clinton, especially considering the state of the economy, as well as the country in general. And I prefer not to get involved in a big political debate, so my lips are sealed in the matter from here on out, Promise! (BTW, I don't have a particular political affiliate. I vote concerning the issues at hand, not by party.)

As for Kumbaya, I highly doubt it's a Democrat song. Though I do believe it has a religious affiliate. So, be forewarned, this post may be moved to the Faith board. :)

 

I have only one thing to say to you Karen_kay

Posted by Racer on February 2, 2004, at 0:22:20

In reply to Re: Can't we all just get along? Racer, posted by Karen_kay on February 1, 2004, at 20:46:22

For once, it's true: just this one thing. I'm going to reveal {{shock horror}} one of the sig lines I use in my email:

"I do not belong to any organized political party. I am a Democrat."
-- Will Rogers

 

Re: I have only one thing to say to you

Posted by 8 Miles on February 2, 2004, at 18:02:23

In reply to I have only one thing to say to you Karen_kay, posted by Racer on February 2, 2004, at 0:22:20

Ouch!!!!! Politics, religion and sports teams. I guess I fell right into THAT one. I clearly do not mean to malign any person or party. I apologize if my remarks (which should not really even have been made here) offended anyone. I shall refrain from posting about any similar issues. Again, mea cupla. Please forgive me.

8

 

If you get the last word... 8 Miles

Posted by Racer on February 2, 2004, at 19:35:15

In reply to Re: I have only one thing to say to you, posted by 8 Miles on February 2, 2004, at 18:02:23

> Ouch!!!!! Politics, religion and sports teams. I apologize if my remarks (which should not really even have been made here) offended anyone. I shall refrain from posting about any similar issues. Again, mea cupla. Please forgive me.
>
> 8

It sounds as if you're not taking offense at what I said, and I certainly haven't taken offense at anything you've said, and I'm the one who admitted to the arguably offensive post of my sig line, so please! Talk to me about money, religion, and politics. Have no fear, I have none of the first, security in the second, and on the third can only say I'm left of diagonal. You can offend me, but you'll have to work a lot harder than bringing in any of those.

Peace, friendship, and recycling to you, highly esteemed fellow Byrds fan.

 

Re: If you get the last word... Racer

Posted by 8 Miles on February 3, 2004, at 20:52:01

In reply to If you get the last word... 8 Miles, posted by Racer on February 2, 2004, at 19:35:15

You're a good Joe there, Racer. I will send you some post soon.


8


This is the end of the thread.


Show another thread

URL of post in thread:


Psycho-Babble Social | Extras | FAQ


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

Script revised: October 4, 2007
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-08 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.