![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 12 of 12. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Lou Pilder on January 20, 2007, at 14:07:53
In reply to Redirect: Citizens commission on Human rights, posted by Dr. Bob on January 19, 2007, at 21:40:22
> > Is run by the scientologists, maybe we should re-direct this to the religion board?
>
> Good idea, here's a link:
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20060614/msgs/724222.html
>
> Thanks,
>
> BobDR. Hsiung,
You wrote,[...Good idea...]to a member that wrote something like that since the group is >run< by Scientologists, the thread should be redirected to the faith board.
I am asking you to post your rational for redirecting the thread to the faith board where the faith board is concerning the service and worship of God. Your reply here to the member's request to redirect to the faith board has the potential IMO to mean that you agree with that member's statement that since the group is run by Scientologists, that thearfore the use or not of psychotropic drugs is a religious faith issue.
I am asking you in considering your rational to consider that there are also religious groups that advocate that the use of tobacco and/or alcohol is harmful. But is the use of tobacco also a religious issue here? Could not the use of tobacco and/or alcohol be a health issue? And thearfore could not the use of neuroleptic drugs also be a health issue?
Lou Pilder
Posted by ronaldo on January 20, 2007, at 14:07:53
In reply to Lou's request to Dr. Hsiung for a rationale- » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on January 20, 2007, at 7:58:38
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
Posted by Lou Pilder on January 20, 2007, at 14:07:53
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
Posted by ronaldo on January 20, 2007, at 14:07:53
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 truth should be silenced and censured. It is a great offence to the TRUTH when free debate is stifled. It seems that permissible debate is debate that does not question the PSYCHIATRIC STATUS QUO,that body of 'truth' which is accepted as truth by the majority of the powerful. How I ask, with tears in my eyes, will PSYCHIATRY ever progress without free and open debate which is both uncensored and uncensured. A quotation from a recognized expert such as Dr Nathaniel Lehrman MD can only be construed as uncivil by someone who objects to Dr Lehrman's views, which within the context of accepted Psychiatric doctrine, are somewhat controversial but never unvaluable.> ronaldo
>
Posted by Lou Pilder on January 20, 2007, at 14:07:53
In reply to Re: Lou's request to Dr. Hsiung - CORRECTION » ronaldo, posted by ronaldo on January 20, 2007, at 10:08:03
> > 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 truth should be silenced and censured. It is a great offence to the TRUTH when free debate is stifled. It seems that permissible debate is debate that does not question the PSYCHIATRIC STATUS QUO,that body of 'truth' which is accepted as truth by the majority of the powerful. How I ask, with tears in my eyes, will PSYCHIATRY ever progress without free and open debate which is both uncensored and uncensured. A quotation from a recognized expert such as Dr Nathaniel Lehrman MD can only be construed as uncivil by someone who objects to Dr Lehrman's views, which within the context of accepted Psychiatric doctrine, are somewhat controversial but never unvaluable.
>
> > ronaldo
> >
> ronaldo,
You wrote,[...accepted..by the {majority of the powerful}...]
Could you identify those that constitute the {majority of the >powerful<}?
Lou
>
Posted by NikkiT2 on January 20, 2007, at 14:30:13
In reply to Lou's request to Dr. Hsiung for a rationale- » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on January 20, 2007, at 7:58:38
Buddhism has been discussed many times on that board with no problem.
I don't see the difference.
Nikki
Posted by Lou Pilder on January 20, 2007, at 16:04:14
In reply to Re: Lou's request to Dr. Hsiung - CORRECTION » ronaldo, posted by ronaldo on January 20, 2007, at 10:08:03
> > 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 truth should be silenced and censured. It is a great offence to the TRUTH when free debate is stifled. It seems that permissible debate is debate that does not question the PSYCHIATRIC STATUS QUO,that body of 'truth' which is accepted as truth by the majority of the powerful. How I ask, with tears in my eyes, will PSYCHIATRY ever progress without free and open debate which is both uncensored and uncensured. A quotation from a recognized expert such as Dr Nathaniel Lehrman MD can only be construed as uncivil by someone who objects to Dr Lehrman's views, which within the context of accepted Psychiatric doctrine, are somewhat controversial but never unvaluable.
>
> > ronaldo
> >
> ronaldo, You wrote, [...a quotation from a(n)..expert..can only be construed as uncivil by someone who objects to (the expert's)>views...controversial<...].
> Could the grammatical structure of your statement here in question have the potential to mean any of the following?
A. views by an expert are conditional to be civil only if all others in that field agree with those views
B. all >controversial views< are uncivil, since there are others that disagree.
C. all views in psychiatry are controversial so all views in psychiatry are uncivil.
D. If an uncivil view is agreed upon by all psychiatrists, then that view is civil.
E. To be a true view, the view could be uncivil
F. To be a true view, it willl be civil
G. No non-psychitrist could have a civil view if any psychiatrist has a different view.
H. Civil views are always true views
K. A combination of the above
L. none of the above
M. all of the above
P. something else
Lou
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 21, 2007, at 2:30:23
In reply to Lou's request to Dr. Hsiung for a rationale- » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on January 20, 2007, at 7:58:38
> I am asking you to post your rational for redirecting the thread to the faith board where the faith board is concerning the service and worship of God.
Hmm, maybe that wasn't the most appropriate board, after all. Do you think Social would make more sense?
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on January 21, 2007, at 5:07:49
In reply to Re: Lou's request, posted by Dr. Bob on January 21, 2007, at 2:30:23
> > I am asking you to post your rational for redirecting the thread to the faith board where the faith board is concerning the service and worship of God.
>
> Hmm, maybe that wasn't the most appropriate board, after all. Do you think Social would make more sense?
>
> BobDR. Hsiung,
Is not the thread concerning in some way the prescribing of psychotropic drugs? The main forum here is about {issues}related to the use of psychotropic drugs. These {issues} could be of any nature unless there is a stipulation to {rule out} a particular issue. If the discussion as to the adverse effects of psychotropic drugs and/or the adverse effects of psychiatry in general is not {ruled out}, then could not this discussion in question remain on the main board where discussion of issues involving psychotropic drugs has been discussed previously?
Lou Pilder
Posted by Lou Pilder on January 21, 2007, at 9:08:05
In reply to Re: Lou's request, posted by Dr. Bob on January 21, 2007, at 2:30:23
> > I am asking you to post your rational for redirecting the thread to the faith board where the faith board is concerning the service and worship of God.
>
> Hmm, maybe that wasn't the most appropriate board, after all. Do you think Social would make more sense?
>
> BobDr. Hsiung,
You wrote,[...thst wasn't the most appropriate board, after all..Social?...]
The grammatical import of your reply to me could have IMO the agreement with me that at least the thread in question could be redirected.
So if the thread is redirected to Social, at least it would not be on the Faith board and then we could go from there to see if it is appropriate there.
There could be a new board that could accomodate something like >|unspecified matters of malpractice|< in relation to the aspects of the thread that has some aspects concerning the overprescribing of psychotropic drugs and other aspects that could be considerd by some to be malpractice by a psychiatrist. This new board could be dedicated to reports by members of adverse reactions, bad outcomes, other psychiatrists and doctors that do not advocate the prescribing of psychotropic drugs, and other events that the member considers to be in the catagory of >|unspecified matters of malpractice|<.
This then IMO could be some sort of way to have the main board for those looking for validation or reinforcement only in relation to the use of prescribed psychotropic drugs, and the faith board remain to accomodate member's discussions about the service and worship of God only.
So I am requesting that any deputy redirect the thread to any board or to creat a new board that could be named,>|unspecified matters of malpractice|<
Lou Pilder
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 25, 2007, at 0:57:33
In reply to Lou's reply to Dr.Hsiung-umamal » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on January 21, 2007, at 9:08:05
> So if the thread is redirected to Social, at least it would not be on the Faith board and then we could go from there to see if it is appropriate there.
I do think it would be more appropriate there, so I've re-redirected it.
Bob
Posted by zazenduckie on January 25, 2007, at 8:21:11
In reply to Re: Lou's reply, posted by Dr. Bob on January 25, 2007, at 0:57:33
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Administration | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.