Re: fully aware/not insisting

[Guest guest]

> I think you're being exceptionally hard on Pete for simply taking

> advantage of the system as it exists in his country and relying on

> what he considers the best information possible about his situation.

> I am sure that is what all of us do when we are in difficult

> situations.

You are probably right, and I think a lot of it stemmed from Pete's

comment infering that it was especially sweet to him that it was Szasz

who lost 600k, not just any other doctor in a similar situation.

Szasz is a giant in the history of the articulation of the meaning of

liberty. It's no wonder Pete would cheer on such an injustice. Szasz

has enemies all over. Seems people want freedom for themselves but

not for others. Pete wrote tonight on the " bio " characteristics of

depression, infering it is a mental illness. Pete has said that those

who suffer from mental illness should have certain rights taken away.

I'd bet my ass to a doughnut that if anyone tried to take any right

away from Pete because of his " mental illness " (Pete has written of

his severe depression on this forum), the feathers would fly. But

Pete also said in an earlier post that HE did not fall into such a

category, as HIS condition fell into the " disorder " category. It is

OTHER that should loose rights, not Pete. Such doublespeak does not

sit easy with me. Nor does his advocacy of many other restrictions on

human liberty. But I should drop the whole thing with Pete. Pete is

a liberal, and thinks in terms of entitlements instead of liberties.

Entitlements infringe on the liberties of others, because they create

obligations for others. Money does not grow on trees. I once was a

liberal. In college I read the liberal radicals of the day. As

Eldridge Cleaver changed, as Sowell changed and as others

changed, so I changed. I'm not a hard core libertarian, and a few

years back when I went round and round with the state party leaders on

certain issues of privatation, I drifted from them. They were pissed

that I was the first and only LP candidate (county commissioner) from

a northeastern coastal county and did NOT advocate privatization of

the beaches. But I won't get into that. I will just try hard to not

be a creature of any heard. And I will speak my mind here about my

strong stance on the separation of state and psychiatry.

Tommy

[Guest guest]

Tommy, I am truly at a loss to understand your stance. I agree with

you that psychiatry and the state should be separate. I think most on

this list would agree. But at times you seem to deny that psychiatric

disorders even exist, and you certainly don't want to pay for treating

any of them through whatever insurance plan you may have.

Tonight I had the misfortune of talking to my oldest friend, who has

been diagnosed as bipolar, and learning that her psychotherapist, who

is a nurse practitioner, had said that she was entering a manic phase

and needed to do certain things to head it off. I had suspected the

same thing myself, and had even asked her about it last week, because

she was teaching full-time, had incurred a great deal of debt

recently, was talking non-stop, getting no sleep, writing a novel and

founding a business. (My husband said, couldn't she see what was

happening? I said, no, of course not, just like you can't see it when

you're getting nuts.) Now if enough people suffer from this kind of

disorder that it can be insured against, I don't see why in the world

insurance shouldn't cover it. Believe me, it saves a lot of misery

for everyone who knows her and interacts with her, and that is a

benefit to society as a whole. I sure don't object to the couple of

cents my insurance premium may pay toward treating her. If these

kinds of disorders are allowed to proceed untreated I think it would

cause all of us more misery than we can presently imagine. And I

don't see any parallels between this and the separation of psychiatry

and the state. Just because the state requires certain employers to

include this kind of thing in health coverage doesn't mean that the

state is dictating what psychiatry shall and shall not do. It

certainly is totally distinguishable from state involvement in

substance abuse treatment that promotes a goal that is

constitutionally impermissible to promote.

For those on the list who state that health insurance and the state

are inseparable, I'd like to point out that life insurance was

conceived of in the 17th century (I believe) as a purely money-making

business (and I have nothing against making money), with no government

involvement whatsoever. Now life insurance doesn't seem like any

better a bet than health insurance seems to be, in many ways, because

all of us will, in the end, die, just as all of us will be sick during

our lives. And most of us will die as the result of illness. Yet

actuaries can apparently find a way to figure the odds so as to make

money out of this. So why shouldn't we have the benefit of it?

Non capisco.

> You are probably right, and I think a lot of it stemmed from Pete's

> comment infering that it was especially sweet to him that it was

Szasz

> who lost 600k, not just any other doctor in a similar situation.

> Szasz is a giant in the history of the articulation of the meaning

of

> liberty. It's no wonder Pete would cheer on such an injustice.

Szasz

> has enemies all over. Seems people want freedom for themselves but

> not for others. Pete wrote tonight on the " bio " characteristics of

> depression, infering it is a mental illness. Pete has said that

those

> who suffer from mental illness should have certain rights taken

away.

> I'd bet my ass to a doughnut that if anyone tried to take any right

> away from Pete because of his " mental illness " (Pete has written of

> his severe depression on this forum), the feathers would fly. But

> Pete also said in an earlier post that HE did not fall into such a

> category, as HIS condition fell into the " disorder " category. It is

> OTHER that should loose rights, not Pete. Such doublespeak does not

> sit easy with me. Nor does his advocacy of many other restrictions

on

> human liberty. But I should drop the whole thing with Pete. Pete

is

> a liberal, and thinks in terms of entitlements instead of liberties.

> Entitlements infringe on the liberties of others, because they

create

> obligations for others. Money does not grow on trees. I once was a

> liberal. In college I read the liberal radicals of the day. As

> Eldridge Cleaver changed, as Sowell changed and as others

> changed, so I changed. I'm not a hard core libertarian, and a few

> years back when I went round and round with the state party leaders

on

> certain issues of privatation, I drifted from them. They were

pissed

> that I was the first and only LP candidate (county commissioner)

from

> a northeastern coastal county and did NOT advocate privatization of

> the beaches. But I won't get into that. I will just try hard to

not

> be a creature of any heard. And I will speak my mind here about my

> strong stance on the separation of state and psychiatry.

>

> Tommy

[Guest guest]

Tommy, I am truly at a loss to understand your stance. I agree with

you that psychiatry and the state should be separate. I think most on

this list would agree. But at times you seem to deny that psychiatric

disorders even exist, and you certainly don't want to pay for treating

any of them through whatever insurance plan you may have.

Tonight I had the misfortune of talking to my oldest friend, who has

been diagnosed as bipolar, and learning that her psychotherapist, who

is a nurse practitioner, had said that she was entering a manic phase

and needed to do certain things to head it off. I had suspected the

same thing myself, and had even asked her about it last week, because

she was teaching full-time, had incurred a great deal of debt

recently, was talking non-stop, getting no sleep, writing a novel and

founding a business. (My husband said, couldn't she see what was

happening? I said, no, of course not, just like you can't see it when

you're getting nuts.) Now if enough people suffer from this kind of

disorder that it can be insured against, I don't see why in the world

insurance shouldn't cover it. Believe me, it saves a lot of misery

for everyone who knows her and interacts with her, and that is a

benefit to society as a whole. I sure don't object to the couple of

cents my insurance premium may pay toward treating her. If these

kinds of disorders are allowed to proceed untreated I think it would

cause all of us more misery than we can presently imagine. And I

don't see any parallels between this and the separation of psychiatry

and the state. Just because the state requires certain employers to

include this kind of thing in health coverage doesn't mean that the

state is dictating what psychiatry shall and shall not do. It

certainly is totally distinguishable from state involvement in

substance abuse treatment that promotes a goal that is

constitutionally impermissible to promote.

For those on the list who state that health insurance and the state

are inseparable, I'd like to point out that life insurance was

conceived of in the 17th century (I believe) as a purely money-making

business (and I have nothing against making money), with no government

involvement whatsoever. Now life insurance doesn't seem like any

better a bet than health insurance seems to be, in many ways, because

all of us will, in the end, die, just as all of us will be sick during

our lives. And most of us will die as the result of illness. Yet

actuaries can apparently find a way to figure the odds so as to make

money out of this. So why shouldn't we have the benefit of it?

Non capisco.

> You are probably right, and I think a lot of it stemmed from Pete's

> comment infering that it was especially sweet to him that it was

Szasz

> who lost 600k, not just any other doctor in a similar situation.

> Szasz is a giant in the history of the articulation of the meaning

of

> liberty. It's no wonder Pete would cheer on such an injustice.

Szasz

> has enemies all over. Seems people want freedom for themselves but

> not for others. Pete wrote tonight on the " bio " characteristics of

> depression, infering it is a mental illness. Pete has said that

those

> who suffer from mental illness should have certain rights taken

away.

> I'd bet my ass to a doughnut that if anyone tried to take any right

> away from Pete because of his " mental illness " (Pete has written of

> his severe depression on this forum), the feathers would fly. But

> Pete also said in an earlier post that HE did not fall into such a

> category, as HIS condition fell into the " disorder " category. It is

> OTHER that should loose rights, not Pete. Such doublespeak does not

> sit easy with me. Nor does his advocacy of many other restrictions

on

> human liberty. But I should drop the whole thing with Pete. Pete

is

> a liberal, and thinks in terms of entitlements instead of liberties.

> Entitlements infringe on the liberties of others, because they

create

> obligations for others. Money does not grow on trees. I once was a

> liberal. In college I read the liberal radicals of the day. As

> Eldridge Cleaver changed, as Sowell changed and as others

> changed, so I changed. I'm not a hard core libertarian, and a few

> years back when I went round and round with the state party leaders

on

> certain issues of privatation, I drifted from them. They were

pissed

> that I was the first and only LP candidate (county commissioner)

from

> a northeastern coastal county and did NOT advocate privatization of

> the beaches. But I won't get into that. I will just try hard to

not

> be a creature of any heard. And I will speak my mind here about my

> strong stance on the separation of state and psychiatry.

>

> Tommy

[Guest guest]

Tommy, I am truly at a loss to understand your stance. I agree with

you that psychiatry and the state should be separate. I think most on

this list would agree. But at times you seem to deny that psychiatric

disorders even exist, and you certainly don't want to pay for treating

any of them through whatever insurance plan you may have.

Tonight I had the misfortune of talking to my oldest friend, who has

been diagnosed as bipolar, and learning that her psychotherapist, who

is a nurse practitioner, had said that she was entering a manic phase

and needed to do certain things to head it off. I had suspected the

same thing myself, and had even asked her about it last week, because

she was teaching full-time, had incurred a great deal of debt

recently, was talking non-stop, getting no sleep, writing a novel and

founding a business. (My husband said, couldn't she see what was

happening? I said, no, of course not, just like you can't see it when

you're getting nuts.) Now if enough people suffer from this kind of

disorder that it can be insured against, I don't see why in the world

insurance shouldn't cover it. Believe me, it saves a lot of misery

for everyone who knows her and interacts with her, and that is a

benefit to society as a whole. I sure don't object to the couple of

cents my insurance premium may pay toward treating her. If these

kinds of disorders are allowed to proceed untreated I think it would

cause all of us more misery than we can presently imagine. And I

don't see any parallels between this and the separation of psychiatry

and the state. Just because the state requires certain employers to

include this kind of thing in health coverage doesn't mean that the

state is dictating what psychiatry shall and shall not do. It

certainly is totally distinguishable from state involvement in

substance abuse treatment that promotes a goal that is

constitutionally impermissible to promote.

For those on the list who state that health insurance and the state

are inseparable, I'd like to point out that life insurance was

conceived of in the 17th century (I believe) as a purely money-making

business (and I have nothing against making money), with no government

involvement whatsoever. Now life insurance doesn't seem like any

better a bet than health insurance seems to be, in many ways, because

all of us will, in the end, die, just as all of us will be sick during

our lives. And most of us will die as the result of illness. Yet

actuaries can apparently find a way to figure the odds so as to make

money out of this. So why shouldn't we have the benefit of it?

Non capisco.

> You are probably right, and I think a lot of it stemmed from Pete's

> comment infering that it was especially sweet to him that it was

Szasz

> who lost 600k, not just any other doctor in a similar situation.

> Szasz is a giant in the history of the articulation of the meaning

of

> liberty. It's no wonder Pete would cheer on such an injustice.

Szasz

> has enemies all over. Seems people want freedom for themselves but

> not for others. Pete wrote tonight on the " bio " characteristics of

> depression, infering it is a mental illness. Pete has said that

those

> who suffer from mental illness should have certain rights taken

away.

> I'd bet my ass to a doughnut that if anyone tried to take any right

> away from Pete because of his " mental illness " (Pete has written of

> his severe depression on this forum), the feathers would fly. But

> Pete also said in an earlier post that HE did not fall into such a

> category, as HIS condition fell into the " disorder " category. It is

> OTHER that should loose rights, not Pete. Such doublespeak does not

> sit easy with me. Nor does his advocacy of many other restrictions

on

> human liberty. But I should drop the whole thing with Pete. Pete

is

> a liberal, and thinks in terms of entitlements instead of liberties.

> Entitlements infringe on the liberties of others, because they

create

> obligations for others. Money does not grow on trees. I once was a

> liberal. In college I read the liberal radicals of the day. As

> Eldridge Cleaver changed, as Sowell changed and as others

> changed, so I changed. I'm not a hard core libertarian, and a few

> years back when I went round and round with the state party leaders

on

> certain issues of privatation, I drifted from them. They were

pissed

> that I was the first and only LP candidate (county commissioner)

from

> a northeastern coastal county and did NOT advocate privatization of

> the beaches. But I won't get into that. I will just try hard to

not

> be a creature of any heard. And I will speak my mind here about my

> strong stance on the separation of state and psychiatry.

>

> Tommy

[Guest guest]

The question I was originally trying to ask in my post was, since the

physician was apparently aware of Szasz's point of view before he sought his

advise, isn't it possible that he was seeking out some sort of reinforcement

for getting off a medication he didn't want to be taking anyway?

I have also stated in a previous post that, although I did not respond to

anti-depressants personally, I have witnessed their apparent effectiveness

in a close family member.

I did not intend for it to sound like I was making an argument against

medication in situations where individuals choose it and find it useful. I

was mainly questioning the motivations of the patient in seeking out Szasz

for advise in the first place.

Joan

Re: " fully aware " / " not insisting "

>

> > I know this isn't a dead-philosopher post, but I couldn't help but

> think of

> > something else Sartre said regarding a young man who came to him for

> advice

> > in making a difficult life choice. " In coming to see me he knew the

> answer I

> > was going to give him... "

> >

> > So, should the family have been awarded the settlement?

>

> Yep! At last, someone sued for not precribing meds, and Szasz too,

> so much the better. I reckon if I had gone on the best antidepressant

> I have ever had 20 years ago I could have had 20 years of happy

> successful functioning instead of 20 years of heartache, frustration,

> and failure.

>

> P.

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

> > > I know this isn't a dead-philosopher post, but I couldn't help but

> > think of

> > > something else Sartre said regarding a young man who came to him for

> > advice

> > > in making a difficult life choice. " In coming to see me he knew the

> > answer I

> > > was going to give him... "

> > >

> > > So, should the family have been awarded the settlement?

> >

> > Yep! At last, someone sued for not precribing meds, and Szasz too,

> > so much the better. I reckon if I had gone on the best antidepressant

> > I have ever had 20 years ago I could have had 20 years of happy

> > successful functioning instead of 20 years of heartache, frustration,

> > and failure.

> >

> > P.

> >

[Guest guest]

> > > I know this isn't a dead-philosopher post, but I couldn't help but

> > think of

> > > something else Sartre said regarding a young man who came to him for

> > advice

> > > in making a difficult life choice. " In coming to see me he knew the

> > answer I

> > > was going to give him... "

> > >

> > > So, should the family have been awarded the settlement?

> >

> > Yep! At last, someone sued for not precribing meds, and Szasz too,

> > so much the better. I reckon if I had gone on the best antidepressant

> > I have ever had 20 years ago I could have had 20 years of happy

> > successful functioning instead of 20 years of heartache, frustration,

> > and failure.

> >

> > P.

> >

[Guest guest]

> > > I know this isn't a dead-philosopher post, but I couldn't help but

> > think of

> > > something else Sartre said regarding a young man who came to him for

> > advice

> > > in making a difficult life choice. " In coming to see me he knew the

> > answer I

> > > was going to give him... "

> > >

> > > So, should the family have been awarded the settlement?

> >

> > Yep! At last, someone sued for not precribing meds, and Szasz too,

> > so much the better. I reckon if I had gone on the best antidepressant

> > I have ever had 20 years ago I could have had 20 years of happy

> > successful functioning instead of 20 years of heartache, frustration,

> > and failure.

> >

> > P.

> >

[Guest guest]

The problem with determining his motive is that we can only speculate

unless we have more information.

> > > I know this isn't a dead-philosopher post, but I couldn't help

but

> > think of

> > > something else Sartre said regarding a young man who came to him

for

> > advice

> > > in making a difficult life choice. " In coming to see me he knew

the

> > answer I

> > > was going to give him... "

> > >

> > > So, should the family have been awarded the settlement?

> >

> > Yep! At last, someone sued for not precribing meds, and Szasz too,

> > so much the better. I reckon if I had gone on the best

antidepressant

> > I have ever had 20 years ago I could have had 20 years of happy

> > successful functioning instead of 20 years of heartache,

frustration,

> > and failure.

> >

> > P.

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

The problem with determining his motive is that we can only speculate

unless we have more information.

> > > I know this isn't a dead-philosopher post, but I couldn't help

but

> > think of

> > > something else Sartre said regarding a young man who came to him

for

> > advice

> > > in making a difficult life choice. " In coming to see me he knew

the

> > answer I

> > > was going to give him... "

> > >

> > > So, should the family have been awarded the settlement?

> >

> > Yep! At last, someone sued for not precribing meds, and Szasz too,

> > so much the better. I reckon if I had gone on the best

antidepressant

> > I have ever had 20 years ago I could have had 20 years of happy

> > successful functioning instead of 20 years of heartache,

frustration,

> > and failure.

> >

> > P.

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

The problem with determining his motive is that we can only speculate

unless we have more information.

> > > I know this isn't a dead-philosopher post, but I couldn't help

but

> > think of

> > > something else Sartre said regarding a young man who came to him

for

> > advice

> > > in making a difficult life choice. " In coming to see me he knew

the

> > answer I

> > > was going to give him... "

> > >

> > > So, should the family have been awarded the settlement?

> >

> > Yep! At last, someone sued for not precribing meds, and Szasz too,

> > so much the better. I reckon if I had gone on the best

antidepressant

> > I have ever had 20 years ago I could have had 20 years of happy

> > successful functioning instead of 20 years of heartache,

frustration,

> > and failure.

> >

> > P.

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

Off the topic, would one of you computer whizzes mind telling me how to get

off the list under this name and back on with a separate AOL account? The

massive amounts of mail or really too time consuming mixed with all my other

work. (However it is appreciated and I would not leave the list for

anything!!!!) Thanks!

[Guest guest]

Off the topic, would one of you computer whizzes mind telling me how to get

off the list under this name and back on with a separate AOL account? The

massive amounts of mail or really too time consuming mixed with all my other

work. (However it is appreciated and I would not leave the list for

anything!!!!) Thanks!

[Guest guest]

Tommy,

whhat is very hard os your persistent misrepresentation of my views,

let alone the obivous venoim that you seem to have toward me for

having them.

I dont make any distinction between " disease " and " disorder " , just

like the DSM doesnt. However, I avoid using the ohrase " mental

illness " at all, especially BUT NOT EXCLUSIVELY of those with unipolar

depression, because this phrase TRTADITIONALLY has meant thought

disorders, or " psychoses " , such as schizophrenia and BIPOLAR

depression.

As far as rights are concerned, I generally think psychological

disorders grant ppl more rights, such as the right to

free-at-service-point treatment, and other forms of assistance in

everyday living. ( I myself get very little of this, btw). I dont

think it strange that one should have differing views on how society

should react to psychological disorder, and these views have nothing

to do with waht I do or do not myself suffer from. As it happens, I

have probably lost the same priveleges a stable schizophrenic loses in

the UK; e.g. it is possible that I would be refused a gun licence for

sport or other purpose, just like a schizophrenic is supposed to but

may not. I'bve also been looked over for work even as a volunteer by a

major UK charity without explanation, even though they have accepted

alcoholics and drug users at the same location.

> > I think you're being exceptionally hard on Pete for simply taking

> > advantage of the system as it exists in his country and relying on

> > what he considers the best information possible about his

situation.

>

> > I am sure that is what all of us do when we are in difficult

> > situations.

>

> You are probably right, and I think a lot of it stemmed from Pete's

> comment infering that it was especially sweet to him that it was

Szasz

> who lost 600k, not just any other doctor in a similar situation.

> Szasz is a giant in the history of the articulation of the meaning

of

> liberty. It's no wonder Pete would cheer on such an injustice.

Szasz

> has enemies all over. Seems people want freedom for themselves but

> not for others. Pete wrote tonight on the " bio " characteristics of

> depression, infering it is a mental illness. Pete has said that

those

> who suffer from mental illness should have certain rights taken

away.

> I'd bet my ass to a doughnut that if anyone tried to take any right

> away from Pete because of his " mental illness " (Pete has written of

> his severe depression on this forum), the feathers would fly. But

> Pete also said in an earlier post that HE did not fall into such a

> category, as HIS condition fell into the " disorder " category. It is

> OTHER that should loose rights, not Pete. Such doublespeak does not

> sit easy with me. Nor does his advocacy of many other restrictions

on

> human liberty. But I should drop the whole thing with Pete. Pete

is

> a liberal, and thinks in terms of entitlements instead of liberties.

> Entitlements infringe on the liberties of others, because they

create

> obligations for others. Money does not grow on trees. I once was a

> liberal. In college I read the liberal radicals of the day. As

> Eldridge Cleaver changed, as Sowell changed and as others

> changed, so I changed. I'm not a hard core libertarian, and a few

> years back when I went round and round with the state party leaders

on

> certain issues of privatation, I drifted from them. They were

pissed

> that I was the first and only LP candidate (county commissioner)

from

> a northeastern coastal county and did NOT advocate privatization of

> the beaches. But I won't get into that. I will just try hard to

not

> be a creature of any heard. And I will speak my mind here about my

> strong stance on the separation of state and psychiatry.

>

> Tommy

[Guest guest]

Tommy,

whhat is very hard os your persistent misrepresentation of my views,

let alone the obivous venoim that you seem to have toward me for

having them.

I dont make any distinction between " disease " and " disorder " , just

like the DSM doesnt. However, I avoid using the ohrase " mental

illness " at all, especially BUT NOT EXCLUSIVELY of those with unipolar

depression, because this phrase TRTADITIONALLY has meant thought

disorders, or " psychoses " , such as schizophrenia and BIPOLAR

depression.

As far as rights are concerned, I generally think psychological

disorders grant ppl more rights, such as the right to

free-at-service-point treatment, and other forms of assistance in

everyday living. ( I myself get very little of this, btw). I dont

think it strange that one should have differing views on how society

should react to psychological disorder, and these views have nothing

to do with waht I do or do not myself suffer from. As it happens, I

have probably lost the same priveleges a stable schizophrenic loses in

the UK; e.g. it is possible that I would be refused a gun licence for

sport or other purpose, just like a schizophrenic is supposed to but

may not. I'bve also been looked over for work even as a volunteer by a

major UK charity without explanation, even though they have accepted

alcoholics and drug users at the same location.

> > I think you're being exceptionally hard on Pete for simply taking

> > advantage of the system as it exists in his country and relying on

> > what he considers the best information possible about his

situation.

>

> > I am sure that is what all of us do when we are in difficult

> > situations.

>

> You are probably right, and I think a lot of it stemmed from Pete's

> comment infering that it was especially sweet to him that it was

Szasz

> who lost 600k, not just any other doctor in a similar situation.

> Szasz is a giant in the history of the articulation of the meaning

of

> liberty. It's no wonder Pete would cheer on such an injustice.

Szasz

> has enemies all over. Seems people want freedom for themselves but

> not for others. Pete wrote tonight on the " bio " characteristics of

> depression, infering it is a mental illness. Pete has said that

those

> who suffer from mental illness should have certain rights taken

away.

> I'd bet my ass to a doughnut that if anyone tried to take any right

> away from Pete because of his " mental illness " (Pete has written of

> his severe depression on this forum), the feathers would fly. But

> Pete also said in an earlier post that HE did not fall into such a

> category, as HIS condition fell into the " disorder " category. It is

> OTHER that should loose rights, not Pete. Such doublespeak does not

> sit easy with me. Nor does his advocacy of many other restrictions

on

> human liberty. But I should drop the whole thing with Pete. Pete

is

> a liberal, and thinks in terms of entitlements instead of liberties.

> Entitlements infringe on the liberties of others, because they

create

> obligations for others. Money does not grow on trees. I once was a

> liberal. In college I read the liberal radicals of the day. As

> Eldridge Cleaver changed, as Sowell changed and as others

> changed, so I changed. I'm not a hard core libertarian, and a few

> years back when I went round and round with the state party leaders

on

> certain issues of privatation, I drifted from them. They were

pissed

> that I was the first and only LP candidate (county commissioner)

from

> a northeastern coastal county and did NOT advocate privatization of

> the beaches. But I won't get into that. I will just try hard to

not

> be a creature of any heard. And I will speak my mind here about my

> strong stance on the separation of state and psychiatry.

>

> Tommy

[Guest guest]

Perhaps I will look a little less kooky standing beside these

credentialed folks. I am not alone. There are thousands of us.

http://www.cjnetworks.com/%7Ecgrandy/nacp/nacp.html

[Guest guest]

> Off the topic, would one of you computer whizzes mind telling me

how to get

> off the list under this name and back on with a separate AOL

account? The

> massive amounts of mail or really too time consuming mixed with all

my other

> work. (However it is appreciated and I would not leave the list

for

> anything!!!!) Thanks!

I don't use AOL, so I'm not sure if this will help, but my mail

program will allow me to create a seperate folder for incoming

messages with certain words in the subject line like [12-step free].

That way, 12-step free messages don't get mixed up with my other e-

mail. Another thing my mail program (Outlook Express)lets me do is

tell it not to download messages with certain words in the subject

line like [12-step free]. If I were to set this up, I could avoid

getting tons of e-mail and just go directly to the yahoo site to view

the post. Perhaps your mail program has similar features? Hope this

helps.

Joan

[Guest guest]

> Off the topic, would one of you computer whizzes mind telling me how

to get

> off the list under this name and back on with a separate AOL

account? The

> massive amounts of mail or really too time consuming mixed with all

my other

> work. (However it is appreciated and I would not leave the list for

> anything!!!!) Thanks!

I'm not a computer whiz, but I've found that the simplest way to to

use this list is:

1. Open a free email account with any company. I'm used to hotmail.

2. Go to http://groups.yahoo.com/ and register with that email

account.

3. Join 12-step-free and check: " No email. Don't send me any email,

I'll read the messages at the website "

This way you will receive no email at your email account, and you will

be able to log on the website anytime and read the messages and post.

Also you will be able to view the Bookmarks and Files.

Tommy

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 3/19/01 4:36:34 PM Pacific Standard Time,

perkinstommy@... writes:

<< It's no wonder you

worship the Therapeutic State, Pete. After all surely you will one

day find the elusive pill or shock of happiness. To hell with going

out and earning it yourself. And if anyone should dare not " insist "

that you take it, and then you do something unorthodox, surely that

person should pay dearly. The blame game of those who refuse to take

responsibility for their own actions--always someone " else's " fault or

some " thing's " fault. Determinism--how utterly disgusting.

Tommy >>

Tommy~

I don't understand your vehemence. It is clear that you believe in

individual freedom and you don't want to pay for anyone else in society for

things that don't relate to you. Ok. But the blaming that you are speaking

about is reflected in the stridency of your comments on others' beliefs. I

don't see why you don't want to understand their viewpoints the same as you

want yours understood. What is important to you you want considered valid.

It is the same for others. It is so difficult to try to explore an issue and

discuss it with such extreme polarization in your communication. People are

different. I don't see what good it does to slam other's belief systems that

are different from yours. I don't get the gain for you or others. It is a

black and white thought posture that doesn't leave any room for anything else

except going from one extreme to another, which continues the polarization of

the discussion and issue, and it feels as if it doesn't go anywhere.

I commend you for setting up your new group and exercising every freedom that

you have. I believe I have a feel for the issues that you feel passionately

about based on your past experiences. I admire some of the stands you have

taken.

I don't know, it would just be nice to see a " regular " discussion with you?

Thanks. Piper.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 3/19/01 4:36:34 PM Pacific Standard Time,

perkinstommy@... writes:

<< It's no wonder you

worship the Therapeutic State, Pete. After all surely you will one

day find the elusive pill or shock of happiness. To hell with going

out and earning it yourself. And if anyone should dare not " insist "

that you take it, and then you do something unorthodox, surely that

person should pay dearly. The blame game of those who refuse to take

responsibility for their own actions--always someone " else's " fault or

some " thing's " fault. Determinism--how utterly disgusting.

Tommy >>

Tommy~

I don't understand your vehemence. It is clear that you believe in

individual freedom and you don't want to pay for anyone else in society for

things that don't relate to you. Ok. But the blaming that you are speaking

about is reflected in the stridency of your comments on others' beliefs. I

don't see why you don't want to understand their viewpoints the same as you

want yours understood. What is important to you you want considered valid.

It is the same for others. It is so difficult to try to explore an issue and

discuss it with such extreme polarization in your communication. People are

different. I don't see what good it does to slam other's belief systems that

are different from yours. I don't get the gain for you or others. It is a

black and white thought posture that doesn't leave any room for anything else

except going from one extreme to another, which continues the polarization of

the discussion and issue, and it feels as if it doesn't go anywhere.

I commend you for setting up your new group and exercising every freedom that

you have. I believe I have a feel for the issues that you feel passionately

about based on your past experiences. I admire some of the stands you have

taken.

I don't know, it would just be nice to see a " regular " discussion with you?

Thanks. Piper.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 3/19/01 4:36:34 PM Pacific Standard Time,

perkinstommy@... writes:

<< It's no wonder you

worship the Therapeutic State, Pete. After all surely you will one

day find the elusive pill or shock of happiness. To hell with going

out and earning it yourself. And if anyone should dare not " insist "

that you take it, and then you do something unorthodox, surely that

person should pay dearly. The blame game of those who refuse to take

responsibility for their own actions--always someone " else's " fault or

some " thing's " fault. Determinism--how utterly disgusting.

Tommy >>

Tommy~

I don't understand your vehemence. It is clear that you believe in

individual freedom and you don't want to pay for anyone else in society for

things that don't relate to you. Ok. But the blaming that you are speaking

about is reflected in the stridency of your comments on others' beliefs. I

don't see why you don't want to understand their viewpoints the same as you

want yours understood. What is important to you you want considered valid.

It is the same for others. It is so difficult to try to explore an issue and

discuss it with such extreme polarization in your communication. People are

different. I don't see what good it does to slam other's belief systems that

are different from yours. I don't get the gain for you or others. It is a

black and white thought posture that doesn't leave any room for anything else

except going from one extreme to another, which continues the polarization of

the discussion and issue, and it feels as if it doesn't go anywhere.

I commend you for setting up your new group and exercising every freedom that

you have. I believe I have a feel for the issues that you feel passionately

about based on your past experiences. I admire some of the stands you have

taken.

I don't know, it would just be nice to see a " regular " discussion with you?

Thanks. Piper.

[Guest guest]

Im not getting into the debate about whether Pete needs or should have meds or shock treatment or whatever . Our system here is socialised medicine but it stinks . I work and pay my taxes , but could not get rehab treatment paid for . Sometimes its easier to get stuff if you're not working ,as if you're middle class they think you have the money to pay privately anyway .

Shock treatment is a very last resort for the very severely depressed . Smart recovery has a very small UK group now with a list of its own , a meeting is .in the pipeline

[Guest guest]

> Perhaps I will look a little less kooky standing beside these

> credentialed folks. I am not alone. There are thousands of us.

> http://www.cjnetworks.com/%7Ecgrandy/nacp/nacp.html

There are very few MD's 0n this list, and no indication as to whether

they have specialised in psychiatry. The PhD's could be in anything;

that of Jeffery Masson is I beleive in Sanskrit or some other

non-psychological arena. Hence the " credentialed folks " here dont add

up to much, and there are certainly not *thousands* of them.

[Guest guest]

> Perhaps I will look a little less kooky standing beside these

> credentialed folks. I am not alone. There are thousands of us.

> http://www.cjnetworks.com/%7Ecgrandy/nacp/nacp.html

There are very few MD's 0n this list, and no indication as to whether

they have specialised in psychiatry. The PhD's could be in anything;

that of Jeffery Masson is I beleive in Sanskrit or some other

non-psychological arena. Hence the " credentialed folks " here dont add

up to much, and there are certainly not *thousands* of them.

[Guest guest]

> > Perhaps I will look a little less kooky standing beside these

> > credentialed folks. I am not alone. There are thousands of us.

> > http://www.cjnetworks.com/%7Ecgrandy/nacp/nacp.html

>

> There are very few MD's 0n this list, and no indication as to

whether

> they have specialised in psychiatry. The PhD's could be in

anything;

> that of Jeffery Masson is I beleive in Sanskrit or some other

> non-psychological arena. Hence the " credentialed folks " here dont

add

> up to much, and there are certainly not *thousands* of them.

I said there are thousands of " us " , Pete, those of us who believe that

mental illness is just as much nonsense as witchcraft. As a Brit who

" knows " so much about psychiatry, yet had never heard of Duncan

Double, you wouldn't know too much about how enormous and growing the

movement is in the U.S. and Canada. Go study your witch-prickers

manual, DSM IV. Tell the Queen I said hi and some day I'm gonna make

her mine.