Posted by Lou Pilder on January 20, 2007, at 9:30:52 [reposted on January 20, 2007, at 14:07:53 | original URL]
In reply to Re: Lou's request to Dr. Hsiung for a rationale-, posted by ronaldo on January 20, 2007, at 8:49:48
> Hello Lou,
>
> It seems to me that the truth should only be published if it is a palatable truth. If it is a truth which might offend the public taste, like for instance..."the maintenance of clients in drug-crippled states by indefinitely continuing them on brain-numbing drugs." then this should be silenced and censured. It is a great offence to the TRUTH when legitimate debate is stifled. It seems that legitimate debate is debate that does not question the PSYCHIATRIC STATUS QUO. How I ask, with waxing tears in my eyes, will PSYCHIATRY ever progress without free and open discussion.
>
> ronaldo
>
ronaldo,
You wrote,[...>palatable< truth...the |public|..seems that ligitimate debate is debate that does not question the (psychiatric status quo)...I ask, will psychiatry ever progress without free and open discussion?...].
As to what grammatical connotation you mean here, if {palatable} is grammatically equivalent to {agreeable}, then could you identify the one, or the ones, that needs to agree in order for what is in question to be published? Also, who in your post is the {public}? And also, could you elaborate on your perception of the {psychiatric status quo}
The aspect in your post about fre and open discussion is someting that I would like to discuss via email, with anyone.
Lou
lpilder_1188@fuse.net
poster:Lou Pilder
thread:724469
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20061228/msgs/724471.html