Posted by AuntieMel on August 6, 2004, at 10:02:16
In reply to Re: My sis - and an explanation » AuntieMel, posted by daisym on August 5, 2004, at 18:49:13
Just to be clear (grin) I am taking a break - from everything but this topic. Like a dog and a bone, I guess, or maybe I am afraid that if I don't keep it up it'll die on it's own. In my opinion that would be an injustice.
As to anti-therapy, this is an example of what I think I read differently than others did. It's from the first post of a new thread about CBT:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/psycho/20040603/msgs/354179.html
"I realize these are rather unusual Q.s, but CBT doesn't seem to get "balanced" reporting in the journals. BTW, I'm not interested in critiques of CBT done by psychoanalytic organizations or therapists (if there are any still left ;) )"It seemed that some folks took this as an attack on other forms of therapy and started countering that part rather than answering the questions. I read it as:
"I know these are unusual questions, but my research hasn't shown what seems to me to be unbiased opinions or studies. Anything written by the psyconalytical community is bound to have a built in bias. So I would like to hear from anyone who has been through it."
with the aside 'if there are still any left' complete with smiley to show it's written in good humor.
As to the wagons circling. I'm not sure if what you don't get is the 'unfairly' bit (meaning they circled but you thought it was fair) or the circling bit (meaning you didn't see any banding together.) If you just didn't see the circling bit, there was talk of it in social around the middle of july. This was where I HAD to say something or risk losing a part of myself.
And Shadows, I'm mentioning the next bit as an explanation of some of the confusion, not as an attack. K?
Sometime in there you issued a troll alert. I knew who you were talking about but couldn't reply with civility. Fires was clueless, though. Because at the same time our "friend" with multiple names had come for a visit. And unfortunately chose fires as someone to agree with - just to aggrevate everyone else. In the first incarnation, Dinah caught a civility problem and blocked him. In the second, I tried to send Dinah an email, messing it up completely which caused other problems. But that was promptly taken care of (Good work Dinah if you are reading this.)...............................MEANWHILE I was cryptic in my warnings to fires telling him to watch his back (meaning don't get too friendly with this person) and he assumed the troll alert was also about the other person. (Does this make sense?)
So, when he piped up with 'i was falsely accuse of being one' I really think he was just trying to set the record straight. I don't think there was any harm intended.
Do you guys understand any of this?
DISCLAIMER: THE TONE OF THIS MESSAGE IS MEANT TO BE CONVERSATIONAL, NOT CONFRONTATIONAL. ;)
poster:AuntieMel
thread:373706
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/psycho/20040805/msgs/374658.html