> On Monday 11 April 2005 02:59 am, Leigh Meyers wrote:
>> but I'm stubborn.
>
> Some might call it obsession. BTW, I think psychoanalysis is mostly
> quackery. Psychology likes to think of itself as a science, but I
> see little there that qualifies. To think that we have any
> significant grasp of how the human mind works is the height of
> scientific arrogance. DSM4 is probably the best evidence of how
> deranged psychoanalysis really is.
>
> "To think that we have any significant grasp of how the
> human mind works is the height of scientific arrogance."
Do you believe in predestination as well?
As far as DSM IV goes, it's screwed up because It's based on the mores of American society and the profit driven need of the medical and pharmaceutical community to pigeonhole people into categories, and drug them that way as well.
Not because psychology is a pseudo-science.
>>>> When I mentioned that Marta and Tully should seek help for
>>>> their hyper-emotionalism regarding Terri Schiavo, I meant it
>>>> in good faith, not as a flame.
>>>
>>> LOL So was your post just prior to the "get help" post, the one
>>> about "someone having too much time" also intended to be helpful?
>>
>> Keep laughing, it works better than many prescription drugs.
>
> Since maybe you didn't understand my question, I will ask again more
> clearly. In the "yagoohoogle" thread, how was your response of
> "*Some*... one has too much time on their hands..." anything but
> simple unnecessary cattiness?
Are you talking about this post?
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20050404/006938.html
What does it have to do with anything? I was talking about someone creating web pages for shits and giggles.
Lay off the benzodiazepines for a while, and then check that post again.
>> What about "drugging away the symptoms"? It's one of the most
>> abused series of prescription drugs existant in the world today.
>> That issue doesn't rate with you? What about the 2-4 week regimen
>> that's never adhered to?
>
> I refuse to discuss this subject in the context of Marta and I think
> you are way out of line for bringing it up in that context. She is
> not using the drug for recreation.
>
>> Your selectivity of cite is annoying and disingenous.
>
> Your single-tracked fixation here is annoying and disingenuous.
Tenacious like a tick.
>>> For you to say something like this to Marta simply goes beyond the
>>> pale. I hadn't realized that such a thing as health privilege
>>> could exist, until now.
>>
>> Well if it does exist... I sure don't have it!
>
> Do you require regular drugs in order to function in the world like
> Marta does? Is anyone threatening to take away your access to those
> drugs? I doubt it or you'd be able to sympathize and would never
> write heartless responses like this. So it must be health privilege
> that could make anyone so blind to what it must mean to live on
> those
> terms. It reminds me very much of white privilege, where we whites
> take so much for granted and are simply oblivious to things that
> people of color face every day of their lives.
>
> --tully
In order...
Probably, but I haven't tried... According to DSM IV we've all got something going on, or will as soon as DSM V comes out in a couple of years.
Yes... My medicine of choice is currently illegal in most of the U.S.
I empathize... sympathizing is for co-dependents.
As far as the possibility of knowing my color or medical condition (or lack of either one), is your name Tully Geller? The "amazing" Tully Kreskin?
What do you know about it?
L