![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 29 to 53 of 58. Go back in thread:
Posted by Racer on February 21, 2006, at 17:43:37
In reply to Re: Very well put » AuntieMel, posted by James K on February 21, 2006, at 16:00:56
Just want to make that clear. Not only that, but I was thinking about a number of posts about the Yates case on the Social board a while back as well.
It's a hard question, any way you look at it. I can't tell you what I think, in terms that the justice system could use. I only know that this case breaks my heart, not only for what happened, but also for how little compassion for her there seems to be in the world. And it still bothers me that there's not more compassion for her here.
Posted by Gabbix2 on February 22, 2006, at 12:57:15
In reply to I'm quite disturbed by this thread because..., posted by Racer on February 19, 2006, at 15:27:59
The people discussing this topic are all part of an online community who share in common -- MENTAL ILLNESS.
>It's disturbing to me too, but not at all surprising.
I've frequently seen lack of compassion, and empathy here toward other *posters* who are exhibiting the shall we say, less charming facets of mental illness.
>
Posted by AuntieMel on February 22, 2006, at 16:28:55
In reply to Re: I'm quite disturbed by this thread because..., posted by Gabbix2 on February 22, 2006, at 12:57:15
Sometimes the "less charming" aspects of another's illness conflict with the "less charming" aspects of our own.
And sometimes it shows in a not-nice way.
We're all a work in progress.
Posted by Gabbix2 on February 22, 2006, at 19:03:55
In reply to Re: I'm quite disturbed by this thread because... » Gabbix2, posted by AuntieMel on February 22, 2006, at 16:28:55
That was my point.
It's circle. People who are struggling post, and people who are struggling respond.
If someone lashes out in anger the backlash may stem from a similar issue.
Posted by Racer on February 22, 2006, at 21:43:18
In reply to Re: I'm quite disturbed by this thread because... » Gabbix2, posted by AuntieMel on February 22, 2006, at 16:28:55
> Sometimes the "less charming" aspects of another's illness conflict with the "less charming" aspects of our own.
>
> And sometimes it shows in a not-nice way.
>
> We're all a work in progress.
I, it should be noted, am already perfect!{ducking for cover}
(Couldn't resist.)
Posted by Sobriquet Style on February 23, 2006, at 6:56:27
In reply to Re: I'm quite disturbed by this thread because..., posted by Gabbix2 on February 22, 2006, at 12:57:15
>I've frequently seen lack of compassion, and empathy here toward other *posters* who are exhibiting the shall we say, less charming facets of mental illness.
How do you differentiate between whether its the less charming facets of mental illness, or of the person.
Mental illness doesn't define the person, nor is the person defined by their mental illness...
~
Posted by AuntieMel on February 23, 2006, at 18:05:11
In reply to Hey! Speak for yourself! » AuntieMel, posted by Racer on February 22, 2006, at 21:43:18
Posted by Gabbix2 on February 24, 2006, at 2:48:54
In reply to Re: I'm quite disturbed by this thread because..., posted by Sobriquet Style on February 23, 2006, at 6:56:27
> >I've frequently seen lack of compassion, and empathy here toward other *posters* who are exhibiting the shall we say, less charming facets of mental illness.
>
>
>
> Mental illness doesn't define the person, nor is the person defined by their mental illness...
>
> How do you differentiate between whether its the less charming facets of mental illness, or of the person. ~Because the person has said so in their post : )
Of course it may not be *true* but as mental illness is loosely defined, and I have know way of knowing otherwise, I take it at face value.
As for it not defining the person, that's both obvious and irrelevent.
Nothing I said has alluded to that
Posted by Gabbix2 on February 24, 2006, at 2:56:21
In reply to Re: I'm quite disturbed by this thread because... » Sobriquet Style, posted by Gabbix2 on February 24, 2006, at 2:48:54
> Because the person has said so in their post : )
Or previously, or in a subsequent post.In my referring to the responders, which was supposition, I said the anger*may* be from the same struggle.
> Of course it may not be *true* but as mental illness is loosely defined, and I have know way of knowing otherwise, I take it at face value.
> As for it not defining the person, that's both obvious and irrelevent.
> Nothing I said has alluded to that
Posted by Sobriquet Style on February 24, 2006, at 5:50:06
In reply to Re: I'm quite disturbed by this thread because... » Sobriquet Style, posted by Gabbix2 on February 24, 2006, at 2:48:54
Thank you for stating the obvious and irrelevent.
:-)
~
Posted by Sobriquet Style on February 24, 2006, at 7:20:00
In reply to I should have added., posted by Gabbix2 on February 24, 2006, at 2:56:21
>Or previously, or in a subsequent post.
>In my referring to the responders, which was supposition, I said the anger*may* be from the same struggle.
Thank you once again. :-) I also should have added.
-
> As for it not defining the person, that's both obvious and irrelevent.
> Nothing I said has alluded to thatJust to clarify, my statement about mental illness not defining the person that was irrelevant and obvious in your opinion, was not a suggestion that you was alluding to something that said otherwise. You was describing how some facets of mental illness affects the person, I was describing how mental illness as a whole affects a person.
I was also, originally responding to the way you defined some people that you've seen here showing a "frequent lack of compassion, and empathy etc" However, my statement was more of a general one, which because this is a mental health site I personally thought it was worth saying as someone might benefit from reading it.
Ps I would appreciate if you didn't describe what I say as "obvious and irrelevant" as I feel it shows a lack of compassion and empathy of what I have to say.
Joke ;-)
~
Posted by Gabbix2 on February 24, 2006, at 11:37:13
In reply to Re: I should have added., posted by Sobriquet Style on February 24, 2006, at 7:20:00
I was P.W.B Posting while B*tchy
Posted by Gabbix2 on February 24, 2006, at 14:35:06
In reply to I should have added., posted by Gabbix2 on February 24, 2006, at 2:56:21
you're quite disarming Mr. Bond
Making me laugh at myself when I'm in self-righteous snit is *real* a talent.
Posted by Sobriquet Style on February 24, 2006, at 15:35:29
In reply to : ) Sorry » Sobriquet Style, posted by Gabbix2 on February 24, 2006, at 11:37:13
Its okay
You was Posting With Beauty ;-)
~
Posted by Sobriquet Style on February 24, 2006, at 15:37:41
In reply to Re: I should have added., posted by Gabbix2 on February 24, 2006, at 14:35:06
Miss Moneypenny
:-)
~
Posted by Gabbix2 on February 24, 2006, at 17:39:57
In reply to Re: : ), posted by Sobriquet Style on February 24, 2006, at 15:35:29
Au Charmant!
I'm glad I'm engaged, beccause you know you're the kind of guy who'd have me deciding to believe that really *was* your sister..
Posted by JLynn on February 24, 2006, at 19:35:15
In reply to Re: : ) » Sobriquet Style, posted by Gabbix2 on February 24, 2006, at 17:39:57
Was just reading the latest on the case and this is what I found:
HOUSTON (AP) — Andrea Yates once advised a fellow inmate that she could escape prosecution by pretending to be mentally ill and persuading a psychiatrist she suffered from serious disorders, according to court documents filed Thursday by prosecutors.
Felicia Doe, who spent four days in a jail block with Yates in 2002, told prosecutors last year that Yates instructed her not to eat, not to speak properly and not to be friendly or open in front of people if she wanted to "beat her case."
"According to the witness, the defendant basically told her, 'Do what I'm doing,'" prosecutor Kaylynn Williford wrote.
Doe, who could not be reached for comment by the AP, also told prosecutors that Yates disclosed details of the slayings, explaining that she locked a door so her oldest son, 7-year-old Noah, could not escape the house and describing him as crying so hard he vomited.
"She hit his head against the bathtub several times in an effort to incapacitate him," Doe told prosecutors.
Posted by Gabbix2 on February 24, 2006, at 21:48:30
In reply to Inmate: Andrea Yates said to copy her, posted by JLynn on February 24, 2006, at 19:35:15
I wonder if she was given any incentive for making that statement.
I don't think there is any doubt that Andrea yates was seriously ill.
She wasn't acting for the years she suffered psychosis preceding the crime, I'm sure.
Posted by Racer on February 25, 2006, at 2:15:55
In reply to Re: Inmate: Andrea Yates said to copy her » JLynn, posted by Gabbix2 on February 24, 2006, at 21:48:30
> I wonder if she was given any incentive for making that statement.
> I don't think there is any doubt that Andrea yates was seriously ill.
> She wasn't acting for the years she suffered psychosis preceding the crime, I'm sure.
That is exactly what I told my husband when I heard that one the news today -- "wonder what she got for telling them that?" I absolutely do not believe that story. And am rather upset by the fact that it's going around. That woman has suffered so much, and to have something like this? {shudder} I can empathize with someone who is sick and not having any slack from any side.Guess most of us here can.
Whatever. I don't believe this story.
Posted by Gabbix2 on February 25, 2006, at 12:41:01
In reply to I agree » Gabbix2, posted by Racer on February 25, 2006, at 2:15:55
I don't believe it either.
And even if there was no monetary incentive,
there's always the attention given to someone who suddenly comes up with something like that.And anyone who's worked in a bad environment knows just how outrageous the gossip can get, I imagine prison is no different!
Posted by Racer on February 25, 2006, at 13:58:55
In reply to Re: I agree » Racer, posted by Gabbix2 on February 25, 2006, at 12:41:01
> I don't believe it either.
> And even if there was no monetary incentive,
> there's always the attention given to someone who suddenly comes up with something like that.
>
> And anyone who's worked in a bad environment knows just how outrageous the gossip can get, I imagine prison is no different!LOL! I wasn't thinking monetary -- I was thinking, "I wonder if this chick got a great plea deal?"
Although, now that I'm thinking about it more, I could also see someone who didn't "believe in" mental illness, maybe just deciding to "stop that chick faking it" by telling a story like this.
Mostly, though, I think either attention or probation. The one thing I don't think is "truth." That Yates woman was sick. Psychotic. And she believed that what she was doing was RIGHT -- even though she knew it was illegal.
uh-oh
Don't get me started on the mental illness defenses in this country, nor the way certain juvenile cases are handled these days... All it'll lead to is me banging my shoes on the table and raising my voice...
Posted by Gabbix2 on February 25, 2006, at 15:07:20
In reply to Re: I agree » Gabbix2, posted by Racer on February 25, 2006, at 13:58:55
>
> LOL! I wasn't thinking monetary -- I was thinking, "I wonder if this chick got a great plea deal?"
>Duh, I was actually thinking about what I posted, (posted before I had coffee) and thought.. why did I say monetary? that's not what I meant. I was thinking plea too.
I was going to correct it, but then I thought.. well probably no one cares.
And then of course.. of course you had to mention it!> Although, now that I'm thinking about it more, I could also see someone who didn't "believe in" mental illness, maybe just deciding to "stop that chick faking it" by telling a story like this.
>
> Mostly, though, I think either attention or probation. The one thing I don't think is "truth." That Yates woman was sick. Psychotic. And she believed that what she was doing was RIGHT -- even though she knew it was illegal.
>
> uh-oh
>The whole thing just horrifies me, I have no doubt she was ill, and I just keep thinking, after all she's been through, what is the point of her getting better..
I don't think I'd want too.It's just so sickening..
> Don't get me started on the mental illness defenses in this country, nor the way certain juvenile cases are handled these days... All it'll lead to is me banging my shoes on the table and raising my voice...
I know the feeling.
But make sure they aren't your good shoes.
Pick the ones that are the ugly shade of black.
Posted by Sobriquet Style on February 25, 2006, at 17:08:40
In reply to Re: : ) » Sobriquet Style, posted by Gabbix2 on February 24, 2006, at 17:39:57
Ahh....but for that I'd have to actually *have* a sister
;)
~
Posted by Sobriquet Style on February 25, 2006, at 17:10:45
In reply to Re: : ), posted by Sobriquet Style on February 25, 2006, at 17:08:40
I'm not speaking about Politics at all lol
I'm off to save the world or something.
~
Posted by Gabbix2 on February 25, 2006, at 18:05:28
In reply to Just realised, posted by Sobriquet Style on February 25, 2006, at 17:10:45
> I'm not speaking about Politics at all lol
>That'd be my fault. Sorry.
> I'm off to save the world or something.
>
> ~Oh, yeah, hey, good luck with that.
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Politics | 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.