Posted by boB on April 12, 2000, at 12:48:29
In reply to Re: Oh, And Another Thing..., posted by Mark H. on April 11, 2000, at 20:15:14
RE: your willingness to offer a diagnosis based entirely on reading a
paragraph or two of someones internet postings.Thank you, boB; you're one of the few to notice my sharp skills in that area.
Mark, sarcasm aside, DSM does not suggest making a diagnoses without controled testing. I have a hunch even you know the error you are commiting here, but persist for reason’s you best understand.
>, but for my part, my fear of persecution seems well founded.
Right. Nothing to suggest paranoia there.
------Mark BEGS the question)
>Perhaps you have not had the oppurtunity, as I have, to read the flimsy basis
provided for many search warrants...That's correct. Other than criminal attorneys, judges and police officers, I don't
know anyone who can make that claim. In what capacity have you read the
basis for "many" search warrants (or any search warrants, for that matter)?----------- As a journalist, I have reviewed numerous court documents. When the documents are not available as part of the file, as they often are after a case is closed, I have reviewed defendants copies of their affidavit for search warrant. In most, if not all states, criminal defendants may release information to the media at will. In addition, several books are available offering studious reviews of the basis provided for search warrants. I have read some of those books.
My position, as a journalist, is that my access to this information should not be an anyway different than any other citizen. Most citizens lack the skill or wherewithal to exercise their right. Some states grant greater privilages to working journalists.
>nor to learn how much more intelligence is gathered by law enforcement
agencies than is acted upon...Hmmmm... intelligence that is gathered but not acted upon... very dangerous
stuff. Nothing to suggest paranoia there, either. Darn me for throwing labels
around so loosely!-------------Let me rephrase that for you, Mark. Damn you for your conptemtous intentional ignorance and your hatred for those who care the least for preserving freedom of information. There is an inteligent and considered national debate regarding tactics and social effects of the war on drugs. My experience includes, as I mentioned, listening to courtroom testimony of narcotics officers, as well as discussions with investigators and defendants, and an ongoing review of related literature.
>Muddying the waters is a reliable, tried and true strategy of self preservation,
thank you.Does "muddying the waters" mean lying about who you are, what you think, and what you do?
-----------Educated citizens of a capitalist nation have a wide ranging experience with styles of speech, including marketing speech, political speech and interpersonal speech. You are likely exposed to many of these styles in media and in your personal life. But In infantile terms you are bound to understand, Mark, YOU ARE NOT THE BOSS OF ME.
And how does that add value to a public mental health
support forum?----------- You are asking me to think for you, Mark. Think for yourself.
> Loose lips sink ships...Get it?
No, I really don't, boB. What's breaking the law or lying about yourself got to
do with participating in a support forum for people who are suffering from
mental and emotional illnesses?-------------My use of psuedonyms stems from my early experiences on the internet, when I learned that my off-hand, mispelled, unedited discussions, such as this, could appear higher in search results than my edited and published work. It also stems from wanting more freedom of speech than many of my clients or employers might allow, if they thought their publication would be connected to my internet dialogue. A reknowned national news anchor recently told an interviewer, when asked what he would have liked more from his career, that he wanted more freedom to express his true insights, outside of the commercial controls of the media.
It has to do with broaching a level of honesty one can not safely countenance in a society that is at war with itself. There are a range of treatments and approaches to understanding mental and emotional conditions. Regardless of the desire of many that licensed practitioners monopolize the selection of treatments, the discussion here is an apparent effort by individuals to effectively participate in their own self care. This discussion is but one thread of that larger dialogue. I am suffering too, Mark, but my effort here is oriented toward addressing the suffering of others, by educating myself, and by comparing and contrasting my understandings with those of others.
Finally, I should point out that you are confusing law and medicine. Maybe you have some authority issues you need to sort out with your therapist, using your favorite med to “create a floor” while you unpeel your layers of emotional confusion.
As for your contempt for journalists who attempt to understand the causes of the recent increase in mass killings, which you seem to so plainly understand, I add this: Any honest study of the phenomenon will include an account of psychopharmaceuticals prescribed to these killers, and a review of the full range arguments concerning the role of drugs in their brash behavior.
poster:boB
thread:29211
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20000411/msgs/29735.html