mental illness

[Guest guest]

Is this really necessary. No one is going to believe Tommy thinks this way.

> mental illness

>Tommy may think that women are expendable in the quest to allow insane

>people to live drug-free, but I disagree.

[Guest guest]

Is this really necessary. No one is going to believe Tommy thinks this way.

> mental illness

>Tommy may think that women are expendable in the quest to allow insane

>people to live drug-free, but I disagree.

[Guest guest]

>Is this really necessary. No one is going to believe Tommy thinks this way.

>

>>Tommy may think that women are expendable in the quest to allow insane

>>people to live drug-free, but I disagree.

>

Tommy thinks schizophrenics should not be medicated against their will. He

thinks schizophrenia is an imaginary disease,a nd that people diagnosed as

schizophrenics are just normal people who are a tad different. He thinks

they should be left to their own devices, regardless of how negatively they

impact other people's lives. I have quoted a number of cases in which

schizophrenics who refused to take their medicines killed people, but Tommy

has not wavered from his stance--he apparently does not believe in forced

medication, no matter how violent the person is when they're not medicated.

(Some) violent schizophrenics kill people, primarily women, when they're

not on anti-psychotic medication.

These same schizos' violent impulses are reduced or eliminated when they do

take their medication.

Tommy is opposed to any kind of forced medication, even if the person if

violent.

If violent schizophrenics do not take their meds, some will commit murders.

Many of them will commit multiple murders before they are caught and sent

to prison.

Ergo, if Tommy is against any forced meds of any type, even if some of

those people will commit murders---if he believes the freedom to refuse

medications trumps all other considerations, even those of the lives and

safety of other people--how is it that " no one is going to believe Tommy

thinks this way " ? I am only gathering my information for what Tommy thinks

from what Tommy has posted on this list.

BTW, as a civil libertarian, I am not gung ho on forced medication.

However, as someone who has been victimized by the mentally ill, and someon

who has been close to others who have been victimized by the mentally ill,

I do think that society is justified in giving schizophrenics with violent

tendencies a choice: institutionalization, or mandatory medication.

Otherwise, legalize open carry of weapons--forget concealed carry. Carry

them out in the open where you can get to them easily. Not that I think

it's humane to shoot mentally ill people--but I'd rather do that than have

them rape, torture and murder me.

[Guest guest]

>Is this really necessary. No one is going to believe Tommy thinks this way.

>

>>Tommy may think that women are expendable in the quest to allow insane

>>people to live drug-free, but I disagree.

>

Tommy thinks schizophrenics should not be medicated against their will. He

thinks schizophrenia is an imaginary disease,a nd that people diagnosed as

schizophrenics are just normal people who are a tad different. He thinks

they should be left to their own devices, regardless of how negatively they

impact other people's lives. I have quoted a number of cases in which

schizophrenics who refused to take their medicines killed people, but Tommy

has not wavered from his stance--he apparently does not believe in forced

medication, no matter how violent the person is when they're not medicated.

(Some) violent schizophrenics kill people, primarily women, when they're

not on anti-psychotic medication.

These same schizos' violent impulses are reduced or eliminated when they do

take their medication.

Tommy is opposed to any kind of forced medication, even if the person if

violent.

If violent schizophrenics do not take their meds, some will commit murders.

Many of them will commit multiple murders before they are caught and sent

to prison.

Ergo, if Tommy is against any forced meds of any type, even if some of

those people will commit murders---if he believes the freedom to refuse

medications trumps all other considerations, even those of the lives and

safety of other people--how is it that " no one is going to believe Tommy

thinks this way " ? I am only gathering my information for what Tommy thinks

from what Tommy has posted on this list.

BTW, as a civil libertarian, I am not gung ho on forced medication.

However, as someone who has been victimized by the mentally ill, and someon

who has been close to others who have been victimized by the mentally ill,

I do think that society is justified in giving schizophrenics with violent

tendencies a choice: institutionalization, or mandatory medication.

Otherwise, legalize open carry of weapons--forget concealed carry. Carry

them out in the open where you can get to them easily. Not that I think

it's humane to shoot mentally ill people--but I'd rather do that than have

them rape, torture and murder me.

[Guest guest]

>Is this really necessary. No one is going to believe Tommy thinks this way.

>

>>Tommy may think that women are expendable in the quest to allow insane

>>people to live drug-free, but I disagree.

>

Tommy thinks schizophrenics should not be medicated against their will. He

thinks schizophrenia is an imaginary disease,a nd that people diagnosed as

schizophrenics are just normal people who are a tad different. He thinks

they should be left to their own devices, regardless of how negatively they

impact other people's lives. I have quoted a number of cases in which

schizophrenics who refused to take their medicines killed people, but Tommy

has not wavered from his stance--he apparently does not believe in forced

medication, no matter how violent the person is when they're not medicated.

(Some) violent schizophrenics kill people, primarily women, when they're

not on anti-psychotic medication.

These same schizos' violent impulses are reduced or eliminated when they do

take their medication.

Tommy is opposed to any kind of forced medication, even if the person if

violent.

If violent schizophrenics do not take their meds, some will commit murders.

Many of them will commit multiple murders before they are caught and sent

to prison.

Ergo, if Tommy is against any forced meds of any type, even if some of

those people will commit murders---if he believes the freedom to refuse

medications trumps all other considerations, even those of the lives and

safety of other people--how is it that " no one is going to believe Tommy

thinks this way " ? I am only gathering my information for what Tommy thinks

from what Tommy has posted on this list.

BTW, as a civil libertarian, I am not gung ho on forced medication.

However, as someone who has been victimized by the mentally ill, and someon

who has been close to others who have been victimized by the mentally ill,

I do think that society is justified in giving schizophrenics with violent

tendencies a choice: institutionalization, or mandatory medication.

Otherwise, legalize open carry of weapons--forget concealed carry. Carry

them out in the open where you can get to them easily. Not that I think

it's humane to shoot mentally ill people--but I'd rather do that than have

them rape, torture and murder me.

[Guest guest]

> Is this really necessary. No one is going to believe Tommy thinks this way.

>

------------

Agreed. Dixie, your personal attacks and wild accusations against

listmembers whose politics differ from yours are most unseemly, and do nothing

to bolster your arguments.

~Rita

> > mental illness

>

> >Tommy may think that women are expendable in the quest to allow insane

> >people to live drug-free, but I disagree.

[Guest guest]

> Is this really necessary. No one is going to believe Tommy thinks this way.

>

------------

Agreed. Dixie, your personal attacks and wild accusations against

listmembers whose politics differ from yours are most unseemly, and do nothing

to bolster your arguments.

~Rita

> > mental illness

>

> >Tommy may think that women are expendable in the quest to allow insane

> >people to live drug-free, but I disagree.

[Guest guest]

> Is this really necessary. No one is going to believe Tommy thinks this way.

>

------------

Agreed. Dixie, your personal attacks and wild accusations against

listmembers whose politics differ from yours are most unseemly, and do nothing

to bolster your arguments.

~Rita

> > mental illness

>

> >Tommy may think that women are expendable in the quest to allow insane

> >people to live drug-free, but I disagree.

[Guest guest]

> In a message dated 2/6/01 12:45:51 AM Pacific Standard Time, dixie@f...

> writes:

>

> ... if Tommy is against any forced meds of any type, even if some of

> those people will commit murders---if he believes the freedom to refuse

> medications trumps all other considerations, even those of the lives and

> safety of other people ...

>

> Dixie~

>

> I have enjoyed much of your commentary on history and understanding of events

> from this viewpoint. I do not think that you have correct information about

> schizophrenics or about findings from psychology, social work , or

> psychiatry. Schizophrenics are for the most part not dangerous. Because you

> have had a traumatic experience with those not taking meds, I feel you are

> distorting information about those with mental disorders and what Tommy has

> been saying. Piper.

----------------

Yes. And interesting that Dixie completely avoids addressing Tommy's

question about who gets to decide what constitutes " a danger to society " or " a

risk of violence " ?? The big problem with forced medication and forced

" treatment " of any kind is the potential for abuse by those who are given the

power to do such labeling and assessments for " compliance " . I know, because

I've been through it (in regard to " addiction treatment " ). I was labeled " a

danger to the public " and not allowed to work for 7 1/2 months, despite the fact

that I had an excellent, award-winning 17-yar work history. The persons doing

the labeling and forcing employees into " addiction treatment " simply sat back

smugly and said, " This is our Professional Opinion " . And I was told I was

" unfit for duty " for as long as I remained " non-compliant with treatment " by

rejecting 12-step ideology and " disease " labels.

If people like that are given the power to label someone " mentally ill " and

force them to take dangerous anti-psychotic medications, all citizens are at

risk of abuse. God forbid a person should be eccentric, or dress Goth style,

whatever -- persons with this power can give you The Label!!

~Rita

[Guest guest]

> In a message dated 2/6/01 12:45:51 AM Pacific Standard Time, dixie@f...

> writes:

>

> ... if Tommy is against any forced meds of any type, even if some of

> those people will commit murders---if he believes the freedom to refuse

> medications trumps all other considerations, even those of the lives and

> safety of other people ...

>

> Dixie~

>

> I have enjoyed much of your commentary on history and understanding of events

> from this viewpoint. I do not think that you have correct information about

> schizophrenics or about findings from psychology, social work , or

> psychiatry. Schizophrenics are for the most part not dangerous. Because you

> have had a traumatic experience with those not taking meds, I feel you are

> distorting information about those with mental disorders and what Tommy has

> been saying. Piper.

----------------

Yes. And interesting that Dixie completely avoids addressing Tommy's

question about who gets to decide what constitutes " a danger to society " or " a

risk of violence " ?? The big problem with forced medication and forced

" treatment " of any kind is the potential for abuse by those who are given the

power to do such labeling and assessments for " compliance " . I know, because

I've been through it (in regard to " addiction treatment " ). I was labeled " a

danger to the public " and not allowed to work for 7 1/2 months, despite the fact

that I had an excellent, award-winning 17-yar work history. The persons doing

the labeling and forcing employees into " addiction treatment " simply sat back

smugly and said, " This is our Professional Opinion " . And I was told I was

" unfit for duty " for as long as I remained " non-compliant with treatment " by

rejecting 12-step ideology and " disease " labels.

If people like that are given the power to label someone " mentally ill " and

force them to take dangerous anti-psychotic medications, all citizens are at

risk of abuse. God forbid a person should be eccentric, or dress Goth style,

whatever -- persons with this power can give you The Label!!

~Rita

[Guest guest]

and then claim the dissenters are in 'denial " .

Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its

victims may be the most oppressive...but those who torment us

for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with

the approval of their own conscience....To be 'cured' against

one's will and cured of states which we may not regard as

disease is to be put on a level with those who have not yet

reached the age of reason or those who never will. "

C.S. " The Humanitarian Theory of Punishment (1949)

> If people like that are given the power to label someone

" mentally ill " and force them to take dangerous anti-psychotic

medications, all citizens are at risk of abuse. God forbid a

person should be eccentric, or dress Goth style, whatever --

persons with this power can give you The Label!!

>

> ~Rita

[Guest guest]

and then claim the dissenters are in 'denial " .

Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its

victims may be the most oppressive...but those who torment us

for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with

the approval of their own conscience....To be 'cured' against

one's will and cured of states which we may not regard as

disease is to be put on a level with those who have not yet

reached the age of reason or those who never will. "

C.S. " The Humanitarian Theory of Punishment (1949)

> If people like that are given the power to label someone

" mentally ill " and force them to take dangerous anti-psychotic

medications, all citizens are at risk of abuse. God forbid a

person should be eccentric, or dress Goth style, whatever --

persons with this power can give you The Label!!

>

> ~Rita

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/6/01 5:40:36 AM Pacific Standard Time,

dmarcoot@... writes:

<< Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its

victims may be the most oppressive...but those who torment us

for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with

the approval of their own conscience....To be 'cured' against

one's will and cured of states which we may not regard as

disease is to be put on a level with those who have not yet

reached the age of reason or those who never will. "

C.S. " The Humanitarian Theory of Punishment (1949)

>>

wonderful quote Marcootys. Piper.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/6/01 5:40:36 AM Pacific Standard Time,

dmarcoot@... writes:

<< Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its

victims may be the most oppressive...but those who torment us

for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with

the approval of their own conscience....To be 'cured' against

one's will and cured of states which we may not regard as

disease is to be put on a level with those who have not yet

reached the age of reason or those who never will. "

C.S. " The Humanitarian Theory of Punishment (1949)

>>

wonderful quote Marcootys. Piper.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/6/01 5:40:36 AM Pacific Standard Time,

dmarcoot@... writes:

<< Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its

victims may be the most oppressive...but those who torment us

for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with

the approval of their own conscience....To be 'cured' against

one's will and cured of states which we may not regard as

disease is to be put on a level with those who have not yet

reached the age of reason or those who never will. "

C.S. " The Humanitarian Theory of Punishment (1949)

>>

wonderful quote Marcootys. Piper.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/6/01 8:45:37 AM Pacific Standard Time, dixie@...

writes:

<< 'm not saying ALL schizophrenics are dangerous, far from it. I am saying

that those with violent tendencies pose a threat to society. I am also

saying that there are many who are dangerous to others in one fashion or

another. I'm also saying that schizos have stalked friends of mine, and

they had NO recourse. Do you know what it's like to be constantly looking

over your shoulder, afraid that the man who has a delusional fantasy about

you and is pissed that you are'nt requiting his love is going to leap out

and attack you at any moment? My friends do.

Have you ever talked to the sole family member of a schizophrenic, who's

tried for years and years and years to help her sister, and just can't

take it anymore? I have. Have you talked with the parents of a

schizophrenic who have had to ban their child from visiting because of past

actions? I have. Have you ever sat and talked and tried to reassure a

paranoid schizophrenic who thinks the world is out to get him, or who won't

buy Arm & Hammer baking soda because it contains communist cockroaches, or

who thinks his house is bugged, or...... trying to help these people is an

exercise in frustration. Or like teaching a pig to sing. These people need

help, but they are beyond being able to be helped unless they're medicated.

Tommy seems to think that the only person a schizophrenic is hurting, is

himself. That's far from the truth. I have yet to talk to the family member

of a schizophrenic who refuses to take his/her medications, who's not

waiting with a combination of dread and hope, the day that the phone call

comes that their loved one is dead, and released from the hell of >>

Dixie I have experienced all of the above from stalking, to being thrown

against a wall, to helping distraught families in the situations you

describe. From this, I do not make illogical generalizations about what

others say who do not want to see others lose their freedoms in institutions

who would deprive you of those by " diagnoses " or forced medication. And

there is really no such thing as forced medication. For this I am still

glad, even though i have seen suffering and have suffered myself in some

instances because of this. A higher principle is at stake here. I got the

help i needed from friends and colleagues. It wasnt always enough but we all

have to face fears and tragedy from instances which have happened to us in

the past. To scapegoat and blame unmedicated so-called schizophrenics or

bipolars is not the answer and it is unfair to those who are fighting for

certain freedoms. Piper.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/6/01 8:45:37 AM Pacific Standard Time, dixie@...

writes:

<< 'm not saying ALL schizophrenics are dangerous, far from it. I am saying

that those with violent tendencies pose a threat to society. I am also

saying that there are many who are dangerous to others in one fashion or

another. I'm also saying that schizos have stalked friends of mine, and

they had NO recourse. Do you know what it's like to be constantly looking

over your shoulder, afraid that the man who has a delusional fantasy about

you and is pissed that you are'nt requiting his love is going to leap out

and attack you at any moment? My friends do.

Have you ever talked to the sole family member of a schizophrenic, who's

tried for years and years and years to help her sister, and just can't

take it anymore? I have. Have you talked with the parents of a

schizophrenic who have had to ban their child from visiting because of past

actions? I have. Have you ever sat and talked and tried to reassure a

paranoid schizophrenic who thinks the world is out to get him, or who won't

buy Arm & Hammer baking soda because it contains communist cockroaches, or

who thinks his house is bugged, or...... trying to help these people is an

exercise in frustration. Or like teaching a pig to sing. These people need

help, but they are beyond being able to be helped unless they're medicated.

Tommy seems to think that the only person a schizophrenic is hurting, is

himself. That's far from the truth. I have yet to talk to the family member

of a schizophrenic who refuses to take his/her medications, who's not

waiting with a combination of dread and hope, the day that the phone call

comes that their loved one is dead, and released from the hell of >>

Dixie I have experienced all of the above from stalking, to being thrown

against a wall, to helping distraught families in the situations you

describe. From this, I do not make illogical generalizations about what

others say who do not want to see others lose their freedoms in institutions

who would deprive you of those by " diagnoses " or forced medication. And

there is really no such thing as forced medication. For this I am still

glad, even though i have seen suffering and have suffered myself in some

instances because of this. A higher principle is at stake here. I got the

help i needed from friends and colleagues. It wasnt always enough but we all

have to face fears and tragedy from instances which have happened to us in

the past. To scapegoat and blame unmedicated so-called schizophrenics or

bipolars is not the answer and it is unfair to those who are fighting for

certain freedoms. Piper.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/6/01 8:45:37 AM Pacific Standard Time, dixie@...

writes:

<< 'm not saying ALL schizophrenics are dangerous, far from it. I am saying

that those with violent tendencies pose a threat to society. I am also

saying that there are many who are dangerous to others in one fashion or

another. I'm also saying that schizos have stalked friends of mine, and

they had NO recourse. Do you know what it's like to be constantly looking

over your shoulder, afraid that the man who has a delusional fantasy about

you and is pissed that you are'nt requiting his love is going to leap out

and attack you at any moment? My friends do.

Have you ever talked to the sole family member of a schizophrenic, who's

tried for years and years and years to help her sister, and just can't

take it anymore? I have. Have you talked with the parents of a

schizophrenic who have had to ban their child from visiting because of past

actions? I have. Have you ever sat and talked and tried to reassure a

paranoid schizophrenic who thinks the world is out to get him, or who won't

buy Arm & Hammer baking soda because it contains communist cockroaches, or

who thinks his house is bugged, or...... trying to help these people is an

exercise in frustration. Or like teaching a pig to sing. These people need

help, but they are beyond being able to be helped unless they're medicated.

Tommy seems to think that the only person a schizophrenic is hurting, is

himself. That's far from the truth. I have yet to talk to the family member

of a schizophrenic who refuses to take his/her medications, who's not

waiting with a combination of dread and hope, the day that the phone call

comes that their loved one is dead, and released from the hell of >>

Dixie I have experienced all of the above from stalking, to being thrown

against a wall, to helping distraught families in the situations you

describe. From this, I do not make illogical generalizations about what

others say who do not want to see others lose their freedoms in institutions

who would deprive you of those by " diagnoses " or forced medication. And

there is really no such thing as forced medication. For this I am still

glad, even though i have seen suffering and have suffered myself in some

instances because of this. A higher principle is at stake here. I got the

help i needed from friends and colleagues. It wasnt always enough but we all

have to face fears and tragedy from instances which have happened to us in

the past. To scapegoat and blame unmedicated so-called schizophrenics or

bipolars is not the answer and it is unfair to those who are fighting for

certain freedoms. Piper.

[Guest guest]

Schizophrenics are for the most part not dangerous. Because you

>have had a traumatic experience with those not taking meds, I feel you are

>distorting information about those with mental disorders and what Tommy has

>been saying.

I've also cited about 5 cases of schizophrenics who refused to take meds

who killed people: Resendiz, the guy who shot Presiden Reagan, the

guy who shot Lennon, the serial rapiest/torturer/murderer.

I'm not saying ALL schizophrenics are dangerous, far from it. I am saying

that those with violent tendencies pose a threat to society. I am also

saying that there are many who are dangerous to others in one fashion or

another. I'm also saying that schizos have stalked friends of mine, and

they had NO recourse. Do you know what it's like to be constantly looking

over your shoulder, afraid that the man who has a delusional fantasy about

you and is pissed that you are'nt requiting his love is going to leap out

and attack you at any moment? My friends do.

Have you ever talked to the sole family member of a schizophrenic, who's

tried for years and years and years to help her sister, and just can't

take it anymore? I have. Have you talked with the parents of a

schizophrenic who have had to ban their child from visiting because of past

actions? I have. Have you ever sat and talked and tried to reassure a

paranoid schizophrenic who thinks the world is out to get him, or who won't

buy Arm & Hammer baking soda because it contains communist cockroaches, or

who thinks his house is bugged, or...... trying to help these people is an

exercise in frustration. Or like teaching a pig to sing. These people need

help, but they are beyond being able to be helped unless they're medicated.

Tommy seems to think that the only person a schizophrenic is hurting, is

himself. That's far from the truth. I have yet to talk to the family member

of a schizophrenic who refuses to take his/her medications, who's not

waiting with a combination of dread and hope, the day that the phone call

comes that their loved one is dead, and released from the hell of

schizophrenia. These people have given so much of themselves to their loved

one, and have lost it all, or have been met with hostility. They care about

their family member, and see their family member in a tortured hell day

after day. Or maybe he gets better for a while, and there's hope, but then

there's the downhill slide.

Tommy refuses to recognize schizophrenia as an illness, (he's referred to

it as " so-called " schizophrenia and has claimed that there's nothing wrong

with these people.) A casual encounter with a delusional schizophrenic

who's not on medication would show him otherwise. He says that brain

lesions are caused by the drugs, refusing to consider the brain lesions

seen before any drugs were administered.

Tommy, I'll tell you what. Give me your address, and the next schizophrenic

I encounter who's not on his meds, and is totally out there, and/or

threatening violence, I'll buy a bus ticket to go stay with you. In fact,

you can have my renter. I'm afraid of him. He's been hostile to my mother,

he's stalked at least 2 other women, and he harrasses me constantly. He's

a control freak. Oh, but if you take him, you'd better get a second phone

line. He's on the phone all day long.

Some schizophrenics function fine. They almost all take medication. Some

bipolar disorder people function fine (there are some in the Bush

administration.) They, too, are medicated.

[Guest guest]

I do not believe mental illness exists

>and I believe people should be free to do what ever they please as

>long as they do not infringe on the liberties of others.

Okay, fine. What do I do when someone infringes on my liberty, in such a

way that the police won't lock him up? Shoot him?

When they

>conduct such infringements they should be punished.

But they usually aren't.

It appears that

>you are living in a state of fear and you would like to lock up anyone

>who you " think " might harm you.

No, but I do carry a gun. I'm really not in a state of fear. But my

kindness and goodwill has been abused many a time, and I've learned to stay

away from schizophrenics.

>Now you have convinced me, Dixie. My girlfriend argues with mailboxes

>and I think your sorry tyrannical ass should be locked up and the key

>thrown away. If you think I am willing to have my beloved girlfriend

>attacked, and raped by a jailer and poisoner such as yourself then you

>have another thought comming, little miss NAMI.

Please show me where I have said she should be locked up. I have never

said that a person who argues with mailboxes should be locked up. I *have*

said it's better for a schizophrenic to take their meds and stay " sane " ,

rather than not take their meds and commit crimes, which WILL get them

locked up.

>I'd tell the clerk or owner to tell a disruptive person to leave and

>if they did not I would reccommend having them arrested for

>trespassing.

Cops won't touch them. If the person is arrested, they'll be back out that

day. Doesn't do any good. Next suggestion?

>And you are ignoring the true crimes

>that

>> mentally ill people can and do commit. Remember Resendiz (aka

>> Resendiz-)? He's killed at least 15 people, quite likely

>more. He's

>> been diagnosed as schizo. So you think it's okay for someone like

>that to

>> be on the streets? how many people do they need to kill before you

>think

>> they should be locked up?

>

>

>Only one.

>

So yo uthink it's okay to sacrifice that person's life, just because a

violent person refused to take his meds? Is that what you're going to tell

the family member?

Trouble is, R-R killed at least 8 or 10 people, and has said he's killed

many more, though he doesn't remember the details. Why don't you write to

the families of those victims and let them know how you feel?

>

>Dixie, for you to even imply that I ever said it was OK to let someone

>kill someone is proof of how far gone you are in this discussion.

Just above you said that a violent schizophrenic needs to kill only one

person before they're locked up.

And I haven't been talking about lock up. I've been talking about taking

their meds, for crying out loud! If a schizophrenic takes his/her meds, in

most instances, they can function in society, even holding down jobs and

keeping the same roof over their heads for months at a time, rather than

days at a time.

>Communicating threats and stalking are crimes in North Carolina. I

>would hope that would be the case in Texas and have a gut feeling that

>it is. If what you say is true, then have him arrested.

I've called the police, who keep promising to send a detective out. They

never have. I cslled them a few months ago to report a stolen pistol, and I

was 90% certain who stole it (an addict that I had been helping out). They

never did shit. They never returned my phone calls. They sent one officer

out to take the report and told me the detective would be in touch. over

the next 2 or 3 months I called the property crimes unit and the detectives

at least a dozen tims. My phone calls were never returned. Nothing was ever

done. They haven't gotten back to me about my tenant, either, and I doubt

they will.

>> What about the guy who killed Lennon? He was mentally ill. And

>the man

>> who shot President Reagan so Jodie would fall in love with

>him. He

>> was mentally ill. Are you saying that these people are harmless,

>that it

>> was no big deal for Lennon to lose his life, for Baker to

>be

>> forever paralyzed, and for Reagan to be shot?

>

>

>Both of these men are incarcerated, hopefully forever. If I had it my

>way the one who shot Lennon would be six feet underground. BTW

>Hinkley was declared " innocent " by the dumb-ass Therapeutic State

>which you obviously wholeheartedly support.

Okay, so you're saying it's okay for them to kill people, that nothing

should have been done to them until they killed people, even if they had a

violent history when they were not on medications? How many schizophrenics

should we allow to kill people before we think about doing something for

them?

If Hinkley had been taking his meds, perhaps he wouldn't have shot Reagan,

and Baker would still be able to walk (and he and his wife wouldn't

be supporting Handgun Control so dang much.)

BTW, I don't wholeheartedly support the " Therapeutic State " . That's why I

want schizophrenics to take their meds--so they don't have to be locked up.

>There are such things as stalking laws, restraining orders and jails.

Uneffective unless the police do something.

>There is no such thing as mental illness.

Please support this wild idea with someone a bit more cogent than Szasz.

He's too easy to poke holes through. Mental illness has been documented for

thousands of years--we used to crucify the mentally ill. Then we locked

them up. Now we have medications for them to lead more or less normal

lives. Gee, I wonder which is better?

Mental illness is definable, it's diagnosable, and it's treatable.

>No, I have never had to deal with a mentally ill person, because as I

>said, there is no such thing. I have dated a few witches though.

In your delusional, imaginary dream world, perhaps.

>I think we should care for people who cannot care for themselves, but

>I don't think psychiatry should determine who these people are. Nor

>do I think we should burden the poor souls with stigmatizing

>pseudo-medical labels.

How do you suggest they be determined? How do you help someone who refuses

to help himself? What do you do when that person is going to throw away all

the help you gave him the next time he goes delusional? Please explain, in

detail, how to help a schizophrenic who refuses to take his meds---there

are hundreds of thousands of family members waiting breathlessly for you to

share your infintite wisdom--because they've been there, and they've tried,

and they've tried, and they've tried, and each time, it's blown away, it's

no good, the person can't be helped because he refuses to help himself.

What do you know thta the long-suffering family members of schizoprhenics,

and the social service agencies that have repeatedly tried to help them, do

not?

>>

>> And for those who present a risk to others, how many lives must be

>lost,

>> how many people must be paralyzed, how many women must live in fear

>of

>> being attacked by some crazy person who has a crush on them, before

>a

>> person is locked away or medicated? Who are you going to tell that

>they

>> have to lose their life because a schizo person has the right to

>live on

>> the streets and not take medication?

>

>Can you define " present a risk " .

I'd say someone who attacks, assaults, or threatens to attack or assault

people presents a risk. I['d say people who abuse animals present a risk,

because they usually go on to humans. I'd say that someone who the police

have been called on repeatedly pose a risk. I'd say that weirdo who stalked

my friend posed a risk (she was dating a prosecutor for the City of Austin

at the time, but still, nothing could be done about him.) I'd say my tenant

poses a risk, and I'm really wondering if he hasn't already committed a

violent crime--but neither the police nor the FBI will check into this,

unless he commits another one.

I'd say that someone who sends letters to a woman, insisting they had some

love affair which is purely imaginary, and getting angry for the woman not

requiting the love affair, poses a risk.

[Guest guest]

I do not believe mental illness exists

>and I believe people should be free to do what ever they please as

>long as they do not infringe on the liberties of others.

Okay, fine. What do I do when someone infringes on my liberty, in such a

way that the police won't lock him up? Shoot him?

When they

>conduct such infringements they should be punished.

But they usually aren't.

It appears that

>you are living in a state of fear and you would like to lock up anyone

>who you " think " might harm you.

No, but I do carry a gun. I'm really not in a state of fear. But my

kindness and goodwill has been abused many a time, and I've learned to stay

away from schizophrenics.

>Now you have convinced me, Dixie. My girlfriend argues with mailboxes

>and I think your sorry tyrannical ass should be locked up and the key

>thrown away. If you think I am willing to have my beloved girlfriend

>attacked, and raped by a jailer and poisoner such as yourself then you

>have another thought comming, little miss NAMI.

Please show me where I have said she should be locked up. I have never

said that a person who argues with mailboxes should be locked up. I *have*

said it's better for a schizophrenic to take their meds and stay " sane " ,

rather than not take their meds and commit crimes, which WILL get them

locked up.

>I'd tell the clerk or owner to tell a disruptive person to leave and

>if they did not I would reccommend having them arrested for

>trespassing.

Cops won't touch them. If the person is arrested, they'll be back out that

day. Doesn't do any good. Next suggestion?

>And you are ignoring the true crimes

>that

>> mentally ill people can and do commit. Remember Resendiz (aka

>> Resendiz-)? He's killed at least 15 people, quite likely

>more. He's

>> been diagnosed as schizo. So you think it's okay for someone like

>that to

>> be on the streets? how many people do they need to kill before you

>think

>> they should be locked up?

>

>

>Only one.

>

So yo uthink it's okay to sacrifice that person's life, just because a

violent person refused to take his meds? Is that what you're going to tell

the family member?

Trouble is, R-R killed at least 8 or 10 people, and has said he's killed

many more, though he doesn't remember the details. Why don't you write to

the families of those victims and let them know how you feel?

>

>Dixie, for you to even imply that I ever said it was OK to let someone

>kill someone is proof of how far gone you are in this discussion.

Just above you said that a violent schizophrenic needs to kill only one

person before they're locked up.

And I haven't been talking about lock up. I've been talking about taking

their meds, for crying out loud! If a schizophrenic takes his/her meds, in

most instances, they can function in society, even holding down jobs and

keeping the same roof over their heads for months at a time, rather than

days at a time.

>Communicating threats and stalking are crimes in North Carolina. I

>would hope that would be the case in Texas and have a gut feeling that

>it is. If what you say is true, then have him arrested.

I've called the police, who keep promising to send a detective out. They

never have. I cslled them a few months ago to report a stolen pistol, and I

was 90% certain who stole it (an addict that I had been helping out). They

never did shit. They never returned my phone calls. They sent one officer

out to take the report and told me the detective would be in touch. over

the next 2 or 3 months I called the property crimes unit and the detectives

at least a dozen tims. My phone calls were never returned. Nothing was ever

done. They haven't gotten back to me about my tenant, either, and I doubt

they will.

>> What about the guy who killed Lennon? He was mentally ill. And

>the man

>> who shot President Reagan so Jodie would fall in love with

>him. He

>> was mentally ill. Are you saying that these people are harmless,

>that it

>> was no big deal for Lennon to lose his life, for Baker to

>be

>> forever paralyzed, and for Reagan to be shot?

>

>

>Both of these men are incarcerated, hopefully forever. If I had it my

>way the one who shot Lennon would be six feet underground. BTW

>Hinkley was declared " innocent " by the dumb-ass Therapeutic State

>which you obviously wholeheartedly support.

Okay, so you're saying it's okay for them to kill people, that nothing

should have been done to them until they killed people, even if they had a

violent history when they were not on medications? How many schizophrenics

should we allow to kill people before we think about doing something for

them?

If Hinkley had been taking his meds, perhaps he wouldn't have shot Reagan,

and Baker would still be able to walk (and he and his wife wouldn't

be supporting Handgun Control so dang much.)

BTW, I don't wholeheartedly support the " Therapeutic State " . That's why I

want schizophrenics to take their meds--so they don't have to be locked up.

>There are such things as stalking laws, restraining orders and jails.

Uneffective unless the police do something.

>There is no such thing as mental illness.

Please support this wild idea with someone a bit more cogent than Szasz.

He's too easy to poke holes through. Mental illness has been documented for

thousands of years--we used to crucify the mentally ill. Then we locked

them up. Now we have medications for them to lead more or less normal

lives. Gee, I wonder which is better?

Mental illness is definable, it's diagnosable, and it's treatable.

>No, I have never had to deal with a mentally ill person, because as I

>said, there is no such thing. I have dated a few witches though.

In your delusional, imaginary dream world, perhaps.

>I think we should care for people who cannot care for themselves, but

>I don't think psychiatry should determine who these people are. Nor

>do I think we should burden the poor souls with stigmatizing

>pseudo-medical labels.

How do you suggest they be determined? How do you help someone who refuses

to help himself? What do you do when that person is going to throw away all

the help you gave him the next time he goes delusional? Please explain, in

detail, how to help a schizophrenic who refuses to take his meds---there

are hundreds of thousands of family members waiting breathlessly for you to

share your infintite wisdom--because they've been there, and they've tried,

and they've tried, and they've tried, and each time, it's blown away, it's

no good, the person can't be helped because he refuses to help himself.

What do you know thta the long-suffering family members of schizoprhenics,

and the social service agencies that have repeatedly tried to help them, do

not?

>>

>> And for those who present a risk to others, how many lives must be

>lost,

>> how many people must be paralyzed, how many women must live in fear

>of

>> being attacked by some crazy person who has a crush on them, before

>a

>> person is locked away or medicated? Who are you going to tell that

>they

>> have to lose their life because a schizo person has the right to

>live on

>> the streets and not take medication?

>

>Can you define " present a risk " .

I'd say someone who attacks, assaults, or threatens to attack or assault

people presents a risk. I['d say people who abuse animals present a risk,

because they usually go on to humans. I'd say that someone who the police

have been called on repeatedly pose a risk. I'd say that weirdo who stalked

my friend posed a risk (she was dating a prosecutor for the City of Austin

at the time, but still, nothing could be done about him.) I'd say my tenant

poses a risk, and I'm really wondering if he hasn't already committed a

violent crime--but neither the police nor the FBI will check into this,

unless he commits another one.

I'd say that someone who sends letters to a woman, insisting they had some

love affair which is purely imaginary, and getting angry for the woman not

requiting the love affair, poses a risk.

[Guest guest]

I do not believe mental illness exists

>and I believe people should be free to do what ever they please as

>long as they do not infringe on the liberties of others.

Okay, fine. What do I do when someone infringes on my liberty, in such a

way that the police won't lock him up? Shoot him?

When they

>conduct such infringements they should be punished.

But they usually aren't.

It appears that

>you are living in a state of fear and you would like to lock up anyone

>who you " think " might harm you.

No, but I do carry a gun. I'm really not in a state of fear. But my

kindness and goodwill has been abused many a time, and I've learned to stay

away from schizophrenics.

>Now you have convinced me, Dixie. My girlfriend argues with mailboxes

>and I think your sorry tyrannical ass should be locked up and the key

>thrown away. If you think I am willing to have my beloved girlfriend

>attacked, and raped by a jailer and poisoner such as yourself then you

>have another thought comming, little miss NAMI.

Please show me where I have said she should be locked up. I have never

said that a person who argues with mailboxes should be locked up. I *have*

said it's better for a schizophrenic to take their meds and stay " sane " ,

rather than not take their meds and commit crimes, which WILL get them

locked up.

>I'd tell the clerk or owner to tell a disruptive person to leave and

>if they did not I would reccommend having them arrested for

>trespassing.

Cops won't touch them. If the person is arrested, they'll be back out that

day. Doesn't do any good. Next suggestion?

>And you are ignoring the true crimes

>that

>> mentally ill people can and do commit. Remember Resendiz (aka

>> Resendiz-)? He's killed at least 15 people, quite likely

>more. He's

>> been diagnosed as schizo. So you think it's okay for someone like

>that to

>> be on the streets? how many people do they need to kill before you

>think

>> they should be locked up?

>

>

>Only one.

>

So yo uthink it's okay to sacrifice that person's life, just because a

violent person refused to take his meds? Is that what you're going to tell

the family member?

Trouble is, R-R killed at least 8 or 10 people, and has said he's killed

many more, though he doesn't remember the details. Why don't you write to

the families of those victims and let them know how you feel?

>

>Dixie, for you to even imply that I ever said it was OK to let someone

>kill someone is proof of how far gone you are in this discussion.

Just above you said that a violent schizophrenic needs to kill only one

person before they're locked up.

And I haven't been talking about lock up. I've been talking about taking

their meds, for crying out loud! If a schizophrenic takes his/her meds, in

most instances, they can function in society, even holding down jobs and

keeping the same roof over their heads for months at a time, rather than

days at a time.

>Communicating threats and stalking are crimes in North Carolina. I

>would hope that would be the case in Texas and have a gut feeling that

>it is. If what you say is true, then have him arrested.

I've called the police, who keep promising to send a detective out. They

never have. I cslled them a few months ago to report a stolen pistol, and I

was 90% certain who stole it (an addict that I had been helping out). They

never did shit. They never returned my phone calls. They sent one officer

out to take the report and told me the detective would be in touch. over

the next 2 or 3 months I called the property crimes unit and the detectives

at least a dozen tims. My phone calls were never returned. Nothing was ever

done. They haven't gotten back to me about my tenant, either, and I doubt

they will.

>> What about the guy who killed Lennon? He was mentally ill. And

>the man

>> who shot President Reagan so Jodie would fall in love with

>him. He

>> was mentally ill. Are you saying that these people are harmless,

>that it

>> was no big deal for Lennon to lose his life, for Baker to

>be

>> forever paralyzed, and for Reagan to be shot?

>

>

>Both of these men are incarcerated, hopefully forever. If I had it my

>way the one who shot Lennon would be six feet underground. BTW

>Hinkley was declared " innocent " by the dumb-ass Therapeutic State

>which you obviously wholeheartedly support.

Okay, so you're saying it's okay for them to kill people, that nothing

should have been done to them until they killed people, even if they had a

violent history when they were not on medications? How many schizophrenics

should we allow to kill people before we think about doing something for

them?

If Hinkley had been taking his meds, perhaps he wouldn't have shot Reagan,

and Baker would still be able to walk (and he and his wife wouldn't

be supporting Handgun Control so dang much.)

BTW, I don't wholeheartedly support the " Therapeutic State " . That's why I

want schizophrenics to take their meds--so they don't have to be locked up.

>There are such things as stalking laws, restraining orders and jails.

Uneffective unless the police do something.

>There is no such thing as mental illness.

Please support this wild idea with someone a bit more cogent than Szasz.

He's too easy to poke holes through. Mental illness has been documented for

thousands of years--we used to crucify the mentally ill. Then we locked

them up. Now we have medications for them to lead more or less normal

lives. Gee, I wonder which is better?

Mental illness is definable, it's diagnosable, and it's treatable.

>No, I have never had to deal with a mentally ill person, because as I

>said, there is no such thing. I have dated a few witches though.

In your delusional, imaginary dream world, perhaps.

>I think we should care for people who cannot care for themselves, but

>I don't think psychiatry should determine who these people are. Nor

>do I think we should burden the poor souls with stigmatizing

>pseudo-medical labels.

How do you suggest they be determined? How do you help someone who refuses

to help himself? What do you do when that person is going to throw away all

the help you gave him the next time he goes delusional? Please explain, in

detail, how to help a schizophrenic who refuses to take his meds---there

are hundreds of thousands of family members waiting breathlessly for you to

share your infintite wisdom--because they've been there, and they've tried,

and they've tried, and they've tried, and each time, it's blown away, it's

no good, the person can't be helped because he refuses to help himself.

What do you know thta the long-suffering family members of schizoprhenics,

and the social service agencies that have repeatedly tried to help them, do

not?

>>

>> And for those who present a risk to others, how many lives must be

>lost,

>> how many people must be paralyzed, how many women must live in fear

>of

>> being attacked by some crazy person who has a crush on them, before

>a

>> person is locked away or medicated? Who are you going to tell that

>they

>> have to lose their life because a schizo person has the right to

>live on

>> the streets and not take medication?

>

>Can you define " present a risk " .

I'd say someone who attacks, assaults, or threatens to attack or assault

people presents a risk. I['d say people who abuse animals present a risk,

because they usually go on to humans. I'd say that someone who the police

have been called on repeatedly pose a risk. I'd say that weirdo who stalked

my friend posed a risk (she was dating a prosecutor for the City of Austin

at the time, but still, nothing could be done about him.) I'd say my tenant

poses a risk, and I'm really wondering if he hasn't already committed a

violent crime--but neither the police nor the FBI will check into this,

unless he commits another one.

I'd say that someone who sends letters to a woman, insisting they had some

love affair which is purely imaginary, and getting angry for the woman not

requiting the love affair, poses a risk.

[Guest guest]

>

> Yes. And interesting that Dixie completely avoids addressing Tommy's

>question about who gets to decide what constitutes " a danger to society "

>or " a risk of violence " ??

Did I avoid t his? yeesh, folks, I'm already spending WAY too much time on

this list. This is only one tiny part of my life. I've got dogs to save,

dogs to transport, dogs to get vetted, cows to take care of, rent houses to

clean....the list is endless.

When there has been a clear pattern of violence, with a person being

repeatedly arrested for violent offenses, I would think it's pretty clear

they've got a violent personality. Witness the guy in Florida, the Indian,

who killed his two kids by rolling his girlfriend's truck into a body of

water with the two small children in it (of course it's a big deal when

did it, but no big deal when the daddy does it.) This man has a

long history of violence on and off the reservation, but no one's ever done

anything about it. In fact, his tribe has refused to allow authorities onto

the reservation to subpeona people to testify. A tribal policeman who

talked to Florida law enforcement was fired for cooperating with Florida

authorities. People who have been willing to testify against this killer

have been threatened by the tribe. Tribal authorities have talked to the

man and scolded him--apparently that's good enough punishment for drowning

his two sons.

Now, I don't know if this guy is psychotic or not, but he's a murderer,

with a history of violence, that no one seems inclined to do anything

about. Seems to me the courts could have ordered him into something before

he killed his two sons.

The big problem with forced medication and forced " treatment " of any kind

is the potential for abuse by those who are given the power to do such

labeling and assessments for " compliance " .

I agree.

I know, because I've been through it (in regard to " addiction treatment " ).

I was labeled " a danger to the public " and not allowed to work for 7 1/2

months, despite the fact that I had an excellent, award-winning 17-yar work

history. The persons doing the labeling and forcing employees into

" addiction treatment " simply sat back smugly and said, " This is our

Professional Opinion " . And I was told I was " unfit for duty " for as long

as I remained " non-compliant with treatment " by rejecting 12-step ideology

and " disease " labels.

Did you sue? If not, you should have.

[Guest guest]

>

> Yes. And interesting that Dixie completely avoids addressing Tommy's

>question about who gets to decide what constitutes " a danger to society "

>or " a risk of violence " ??

Did I avoid t his? yeesh, folks, I'm already spending WAY too much time on

this list. This is only one tiny part of my life. I've got dogs to save,

dogs to transport, dogs to get vetted, cows to take care of, rent houses to

clean....the list is endless.

When there has been a clear pattern of violence, with a person being

repeatedly arrested for violent offenses, I would think it's pretty clear

they've got a violent personality. Witness the guy in Florida, the Indian,

who killed his two kids by rolling his girlfriend's truck into a body of

water with the two small children in it (of course it's a big deal when

did it, but no big deal when the daddy does it.) This man has a

long history of violence on and off the reservation, but no one's ever done

anything about it. In fact, his tribe has refused to allow authorities onto

the reservation to subpeona people to testify. A tribal policeman who

talked to Florida law enforcement was fired for cooperating with Florida

authorities. People who have been willing to testify against this killer

have been threatened by the tribe. Tribal authorities have talked to the

man and scolded him--apparently that's good enough punishment for drowning

his two sons.

Now, I don't know if this guy is psychotic or not, but he's a murderer,

with a history of violence, that no one seems inclined to do anything

about. Seems to me the courts could have ordered him into something before

he killed his two sons.

The big problem with forced medication and forced " treatment " of any kind

is the potential for abuse by those who are given the power to do such

labeling and assessments for " compliance " .

I agree.

I know, because I've been through it (in regard to " addiction treatment " ).

I was labeled " a danger to the public " and not allowed to work for 7 1/2

months, despite the fact that I had an excellent, award-winning 17-yar work

history. The persons doing the labeling and forcing employees into

" addiction treatment " simply sat back smugly and said, " This is our

Professional Opinion " . And I was told I was " unfit for duty " for as long

as I remained " non-compliant with treatment " by rejecting 12-step ideology

and " disease " labels.

Did you sue? If not, you should have.

[Guest guest]

Dixie,

You have demonstrated that you are a hysterical bigot and a menace to

society. I feel sorry for your neighbors. Debunking all of your lies

and delusions would be a full time job. Please, go back to Texas, and

don't let the screen door hit you on the way out.

<Plonk>

Jim

>

> ----- Original Message -----

> From: <dixie@f...>

>

> > Tommy,

> > From reading your posts, I am beginning to think that you are

indeed

> > mentally ill, and are in denial of that fact...

>

> Two comments:

>

> (1) That's really rude.

> (2) Congratulations on becoming the first person I have ever

killfiled in

> the entire 2 & 1/2 year history of this list.

>

> --wally