>Kelley, stop defending me.
i haven't defended you at all. i pointed out something you might not know: carrol calls nearly everyone new to this list a variation of "ignorant asshole" or whatever. especially if you don't drop all the keywords. heck, he called names even when he knew i knew doug. and heck, doug and i have gotten into some heated wars with one another of the constitution, as i recall.
>I'm a malignant, ignorant shit,
>Carrol says so, so it must be true,
>even Doug thinks I breath methane or something.
>Emphasis on "or something", I take it.
should i go thru my archives of posts from dc-stuff? i recall that i was called
a pop tart crunching ditz or something to that effect a fucking whore, a scene whore, oh and a dumb cunt --but maybe that was just wishful thinking
and matt cramer had some choice words from me too cause i like to dress him up in a non sequitur gown and fuck me pumps. (hey matt! :) all in good fun doncha know!)
when you don't speak in the dominant lexicon or deploy the various idioms with facility in the milieux you float in and out of, you end up getting called names.
it's how groups maintain their coherence and sense of common identity, even when they are rather diverse internally. it's an unavoidable process and all newbies have to go through the portal and learn how to do so.
>Doug, I'm not a "folks", I've not engaged in ad hominems.
>You have, however.
\ true. doug has a nasty habit of making general statements to the list, refusing to name the names of the offenders. like a teacher, he thinks it best not to single people out and those who know they're innocent will know that they weren't target. this is strange thing to think for a survivor of Catholicism. LOL
>and Maria? Did those case histories, remain active?
>Makes staying active take on a whole new significance, né?
well, i harbor, like a lot of good ole americans, the can-do, pull myself up by the bootstraps, don't need no stinking drugs or help to get over my problems attitude. so, i'm resisting some of the discussions of the uniqueness and indeed existence of Depression . more so, i'm having a hard time b/c i'm somewhat familiar with thomas szasz's work on mental illness, as well as a slew of sociological work in general that talks about how people "become" Depressed by going to a psychiatrist/therapist or an alchoholic by going to AA meetings or a co-dependent by going to some self help group. ( for those offended by those comments, pls read the work in this area before you go blasting me. the argument is about how people retroactively identify their past be/h and experiences as signs or symptoms of their Depression, alcoholism, co dependency, etc. this doesn't mean that the affliction is not real -- although in the case of more ambiguous situations, like co-dependency--it may very well be the case that it is not *real* rather, what it means is that people *become* [learn to identify as] an alcoholic, Depressed person, manic depressive, etc etc etc. recognizing that is not a malicious claim as to the non existence of the phenom, it is however a claim about the possibility that ones behavior, identity, attitudes, beliefs, ways of think in and through the process of identification is more malleable than we might think.)
at any rate, even though i could whip out some books, refresh my memory and make some arguments as to the problems with some of what has been said on this list, not to mention my own experiences, i think it's a good situation to sit back and think and read and pay attention and possibly change my mind or at least learn to see the world from the perspective of someone else.
finally, to others: i don't think reese mentioned that exercise would cure depression. i think he was trying to suggest that we certainly have an interesting way of viewing these problems that differs quite a bit from, say, people in asian cultures. why do you suppose that is? he also simply said that he'd observed that people who are active aren't depressed and he made no causal argument. sure, he might have been implying or suggesting, but this was a severe over reaction.
and, btw, arguments like that of szaz's were considered *very* radical and *very* left a few decades ago. szaz's work, for ex, was one of the factors behind changing the classification of homosexuality as a psychiatric illness.