Psycho-Babble Faith Thread 967241

Shown: posts 7 to 31 of 31. Go back in thread:

 

Lou's response-whatzghoenohn

Posted by Lou Pilder on October 28, 2010, at 14:32:28

In reply to Lou's apology and Delshannon, posted by Lou Pilder on October 25, 2010, at 13:34:12

Friends,
In relation to posts about me here, there is a part to all of this that may be unbeknownst to you. You see, it is not my intention to get people to stop their drug(s). What I am tryng to do is to save lives. I am attempting to do this by the means of education. Now I think that the more one is educated about mind-altering drugs, that they will make a more informed decision as to take them or not.
If you are one that wants to dispute what I post, then please do so. I have a very broad background in the history of psychotropic drugs and have a background in undergraduate chemistry. I can follow the chemical contruction of psychotropic chemicals and have an understanding that leads me to know the dangers of the chemicals to humans as to the action of the chemicals on nerve cells. I also have studied {nerve agents} and I am not permitted by a post here from Mr. Hsiung to me to post concerning the historical aspects related to those agents as to how they were devised and for what purpose.
Mr. Hsiung has also posted to me a threat to expel me from this community if I was to post what is the foundation of Judaism as that it has been revealed from my god to me a commandment from my god to me that I (redacted by respondent).
Here is an article that I think could be educational value to those that are comnsidering posting in this thread or parallel threads.
Lou
To read this article;
A. pull up google
B. Type in;
[Media-CCHR Australia-Citizen's Committee on Human Rights, inmates]
Many articles will come up and it is the first one that I see. To verify, you will see the words when pulled up;
"Psychiatrists Admit"

 

A THEORY ABOUT 'LOU'

Posted by atypical on October 28, 2010, at 14:32:29

In reply to Lou's response-whatzghoenohn, posted by Lou Pilder on October 25, 2010, at 14:48:08

Ladies & Gentlemen:

I have a theory. Lou is not a human being. Lou is an "it." With "it" being an Internet Bot.

From wiki: "Internet bots, also known as web robots, or simply bots, are software applications that run automated tasks over the Internet. Typically, bots perform tasks that are both simple and structurally repetitive, at a much higher rate than would be possible for a human alone."

HA! THIS IS HILARIOUS! WE'VE ALL BEEN ARGUING WITH A BOT ALL THIS TIME! HA HA, HA HA HA! Come laugh now everyone!

I would give you a link to a Google or YouTube video about Internet Bots, but I'm sure you're all so tired of going every single one of Lou's.

Atypical

 

I didn't find that very funny atypical

Posted by Dinah on October 28, 2010, at 14:32:29

In reply to A THEORY ABOUT 'LOU', posted by atypical on October 25, 2010, at 16:20:43

Lou *is* a person. Perhaps if everyone kept in mind that he is a person just like everyone else, and can feel as hurt as anyone else, people would be more accepting.

I can, unfortunately, imagine quite well how I would feel if I were to read that written about me.

 

Re: Lou's response-whatzghoenohn Lou Pilder

Posted by Conundrum on October 28, 2010, at 14:32:29

In reply to Lou's response-whatzghoenohn, posted by Lou Pilder on October 25, 2010, at 14:48:08

> Friends,
> In relation to posts about me here, there is a part to all of this that may be unbeknownst to you. You see, it is not my intention to get people to stop their drug(s). What I am tryng to do is to save lives. I am attempting to do this by the means of education. Now I think that the more one is educated about mind-altering drugs, that they will make a more informed decision as to take them or not.
> If you are one that wants to dispute what I post, then please do so. I have a very broad background in the history of psychotropic drugs and have a background in undergraduate chemistry. I can follow the chemical contruction of psychotropic chemicals and have an understanding that leads me to know the dangers of the chemicals to humans as to the action of the chemicals on nerve cells. I also have studied {nerve agents} and I am not permitted by a post here from Mr. Hsiung to me to post concerning the historical aspects related to those agents as to how they were devised and for what purpose.
> Mr. Hsiung has also posted to me a threat to expel me from this community if I was to post what is the foundation of Judaism as that it has been revealed from my god to me a commandment from my god to me that I (redacted by respondent).
> Here is an article that I think could be educational value to those that are comnsidering posting in this thread or parallel threads.
> Lou
> To read this article;
> A. pull up google
> B. Type in;
> [Media-CCHR Australia-Citizen's Committee on Human Rights, inmates]
> Many articles will come up and it is the first one that I see. To verify, you will see the words when pulled up;
> "Psychiatrists Admit"

Lou, you can just post the link in the thread like this:
http://www.cchr.org.au/media.php?id=78

I've read the article. The article says that Nazi psychiatrists supported eugenics and carried out atrocities.

Lou, I don't know where to begin. It is just not logical to say, that since Nazi scientists carried out and supported eugenics, that psychiatry today supports those views. At that point in history, there was a great deal of thinkers that supported eugenics, spurred by social Darwinism. This idea was not just limited to psychiatrists, but to politicians, philosophers, other medical practitioners, whoever wanted to believe in the stuff, or was taught to. It also was not limited to the Nazi's but they were the most fervent believers in a pure race. So to assume that because some psychiatrists, in a country that at the time would promote those who hated other races, in the past where such ideas were common, is that same to today, is crazy.

Hitler would have had those he saw unfit executed whether he found psychiatrists who agreed with him or not.

Like most sciences psychiatry has evolved. People aren't carted off to the funny farm, or having parts of their brains lopped off. Just because some crazy regime tried to use psychiatry to legitimize its insanity, doe not mean that psychiatry today, is derivative to Nazi philosophies.

Sure there is an element of control in psychiatry. The doctor always knows best. Its annoying in a field where there is so much guess work, but to say there is a link to the 3rd Reich is absurd.

Also you mentioned God gave you a commandment. That should be a red flag to anyone reading this, that Lou is not in a completely sane state of mind. I would hope the people here would have picked up on this by now. I don't think picking on someone with a mental disorder, despite the fact they don't see themselves as having a disorder, is the purpose of this group.

 

Re: A THEORY ABOUT 'LOU' atypical

Posted by 10derHeart on October 28, 2010, at 14:32:30

In reply to A THEORY ABOUT 'LOU', posted by atypical on October 25, 2010, at 16:20:43

Hilarious? I don't think so. I can think of other words that begin with *h* to describe this, though.

I didn't find myself experiencing anything that would remotely lead me to a reaction including laughter.

More like, "oh. ouch. sheesh. Hope Lou doesn't see this....," accompanied by wincing.

What if I were to post a theory that you are not a human being? Would that be okay with you?

I feel lost as to understanding some of the posting here lately.

 

Re: Lou's response-whatzghoenohn Conundrum

Posted by 10derHeart on October 28, 2010, at 14:32:30

In reply to Re: Lou's response-whatzghoenohn Lou Pilder, posted by Conundrum on October 25, 2010, at 18:01:09

"Also you mentioned God gave you a commandment. That should be a red flag to anyone reading this, that Lou is not in a completely sane state of mind."

Says who? sigh.

I think you've written a mostly sensible and well-intentioned post. I deeply appreciate your compassion and attitude toward Lou re: "picking on" people - I really, really do. However, I feel offended at the above comment. I am a Christian and in my faith *I* place having a very personal relationship with my God and/or Christ in front of everything else in importance in my life. This may (actually, does)include at certain times - belief that the communication is a two-way one. I have that right, just as you have the right to believe otherwise.

I guess holding this belief makes me not sane as well? If so, I will happily join that club with Lou.

I don't think it was necessary to express your opinion that those who may feel they are in touch with God are insane. I think it actually took some of the focus and impact away from your post. I don't think Dr. Bob supports that sort of thing here and I wish you would rephrase that.

Thanks for listening and I hope I have been civil. I am trying very, very hard.

 

Re: Lou's response-whatzghoenohn Lou Pilder

Posted by SLS on October 28, 2010, at 14:32:30

In reply to Lou's response-whatzghoenohn, posted by Lou Pilder on October 25, 2010, at 14:48:08

Lou.

I am still waiting for you to attend to MY questions. I feel that there is an inequity in the way that you request so much of everyone in a posting community, yet pay no attention to the requests of others.

Question:

Under what circumstances is it desirable for a medical doctor to administer psychotropic drugs?

Since I have already asked this question of you, let us consider this post to be a notification of an outstanding request that you have yet to attend to.


- Scott

 

Re: Lou's response-whatzghoenohn

Posted by Phillipa on October 28, 2010, at 14:32:30

In reply to Re: Lou's response-whatzghoenohn Lou Pilder, posted by SLS on October 25, 2010, at 19:38:48

Lou you once wrote a post on babble about continuous music in you head could you repost it as I found it explained a lot to myself. As for the Marvin Gay video I didn't read it as having to do with meds just living in harmony and love with others. That's just my take. Phillipa

 

Re: Lou's response-whatzghoenohn

Posted by morgan miller on October 28, 2010, at 14:32:31

In reply to Re: Lou's response-whatzghoenohn Conundrum, posted by 10derHeart on October 25, 2010, at 18:51:53

> "Also you mentioned God gave you a commandment. That should be a red flag to anyone reading this, that Lou is not in a completely sane state of mind."
>
> Says who? sigh.
>
> I think you've written a mostly sensible and well-intentioned post. I deeply appreciate your compassion and attitude toward Lou re: "picking on" people - I really, really do. However, I feel offended at the above comment. I am a Christian and in my faith *I* place having a very personal relationship with my God and/or Christ in front of everything else in importance in my life. This may (actually, does)include at certain times - belief that the communication is a two-way one. I have that right, just as you have the right to believe otherwise.
>
> I guess holding this belief makes me not sane as well? If so, I will happily join that club with Lou.
>
> I don't think it was necessary to express your opinion that those who may feel they are in touch with God are insane. I think it actually took some of the focus and impact away from your post. I don't think Dr. Bob supports that sort of thing here and I wish you would rephrase that.
>
> Thanks for listening and I hope I have been civil. I am trying very, very hard.

I was a bit surprised by what Conundrum said, still, I can see why he said it. I think there are many reasonable people out there that would think of someone as not quite being of a fully stable and sound mind if they claimed to be carrying out commandments made to them by God. Sure Jesus did this, but that was Jesus. And there are many highly educated very logical and sensible people that believe that Jesus was not a bit off his rocker. Please don't get offended by this, I'm just saying. I actually think, if everything I've heard and read about him is true, that Jesus was a great man. And I believe Lou is a good man, so this I don't believe anyone is making an assault on Lou's character. Also, I don't know a single person that is a devout Christian or Jew, that has ever said God makes commandments for them to carry out. It would be different if they said it is God's message to try to do good in the world and this is why they were motivated to do the good deeds they did. Maybe this is what Lou meant.

 

Re: Ed's request

Posted by maxime on October 28, 2010, at 14:32:31

In reply to Ed's request, posted by ed_uk2010 on October 25, 2010, at 14:06:14

> Lou,
>
> I believe Maxime has an outstanding request above.

Thank you Ed, yes I do.

Lou, the link to the thread is http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20101020/msgs/966820.html

 

Re: Lou's apology and Delshannon Lou Pilder

Posted by maxime on October 28, 2010, at 14:32:31

In reply to Lou's apology and Delshannon, posted by Lou Pilder on October 25, 2010, at 13:34:12

You wrote that it is okay to take meds that doctors prescribe. But then you wrote that you were against "mind-altering drugs". If you are taking about psych meds well ... they are prescribed by doctor. So keeping in line with your thinking, taking these psych meds are not the problems. What do you consider to be mind altering drugs?

 

Re: A THEORY ABOUT 'LOU' atypical

Posted by maxime on October 28, 2010, at 14:32:32

In reply to A THEORY ABOUT 'LOU', posted by atypical on October 25, 2010, at 16:20:43

What you wrote was not funny at all. It was mean.

 

Re: Lou's response-whatzghoenohn morgan miller

Posted by Dinah on October 28, 2010, at 14:32:32

In reply to Re: Lou's response-whatzghoenohn, posted by morgan miller on October 25, 2010, at 20:34:00

> Also, I don't know a single person that is a devout Christian or Jew, that has ever said God makes commandments for them to carry out. It would be different if they said it is God's message to try to do good in the world and this is why they were motivated to do the good deeds they did. Maybe this is what Lou meant.

I think you might know a single person. I know a good many. There are those who believe in a more personal relationship with God than you might experience. I'm not sure those of my acquaintance would consider it a commandment, but many people I know consider themselves to have been called by God. I feel nudged now and again myself. It's actually rather common in many of the church groups I've attended. And the churches I've attended haven't been particularly fundamentalist or charismatic.

I remember once someone in my Sunday School class told me that God had told her that I should go to a charismatic retreat that is very emotional in tone. I rather suspect that the woman thought it up herself, because I don't think God would be that wrong...

I know that neither you nor Conundrum meant any offense. But there are groups of people who think in those terms on an everyday basis. It doesn't mean that they are all sane of course, but neither does it mean, on the face of it, that they aren't. It may be a cultural thing.

 

Re: Lou's request-eduphouryu Lou Pilder

Posted by maxime on October 28, 2010, at 14:32:32

In reply to Lou's request-eduphouryu, posted by Lou Pilder on October 25, 2010, at 13:12:21

A lot of people have posed legitimate questions in this thread. I hope that you will take the time to answer them. That is one of the things I don't like about the way you post. You ask us all sorts of questions, but when we ask you questions you never answer them. Please take some time to answer people.

 

Re: Lou's response-whatzghoenohn Dinah

Posted by Phillipa on October 28, 2010, at 14:32:33

In reply to Re: Lou's response-whatzghoenohn morgan miller, posted by Dinah on October 25, 2010, at 21:25:32

It's interesting you say cultural as when nursing in the NE if a person carried a bible the docs said they were religiously preoccupied and that wasn't good meant something wrong now in the "Bible Belt" South it's considered completly normal. So I know from experience that diagnosis and treatments are different in both places also. Just an observation. Phillipa

 

Please be civil atypical

Posted by Deputy Racer on October 28, 2010, at 14:32:33

In reply to A THEORY ABOUT 'LOU', posted by atypical on October 25, 2010, at 16:20:43

> I have a theory. Lou is not a human being. Lou is an "it." With "it" being an Internet Bot.
>
> HA! THIS IS HILARIOUS! WE'VE ALL BEEN ARGUING WITH A BOT ALL THIS TIME! HA HA, HA HA HA! Come laugh now everyone!


Please don't post anything which could lead others to feel accused or put down, even in an attempt at humor.

If you have any questions regarding the posting policies on this site, please read the FAQ, located at http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil Follow ups to this action should be directed to the Administration board and should themselves be civil.

Dr Bob has ultimate authority over all administrative issues on this site, and may choose at any time to revise or reverse any action taken by a deputy.

Deputy Racer

 

Re: Lou's response-whatzghoenohn Phillipa

Posted by Dinah on October 28, 2010, at 14:32:33

In reply to Re: Lou's response-whatzghoenohn Dinah, posted by Phillipa on October 25, 2010, at 21:36:37

Really? Carrying a bible is considered a sign of mental illness in the northeast? Down here they make pretty travelling cases for them, like an ipod case.

I never carried one myself, but I've got one on my Kindle. Does that count? :)

I've always lived in the South, or in Utah. While I have a deep and abiding faith in God, and believe that everyone can have personal relationship with God, in my area of the world I'm probably on the lower end of the religious spectrum.

 

Re: Lou's response-whatzghoenohn Dinah

Posted by Phillipa on October 28, 2010, at 14:32:34

In reply to Re: Lou's response-whatzghoenohn Phillipa, posted by Dinah on October 25, 2010, at 21:52:46

Dinah I'm seriously telling the truth of the psych wards I worked in up North. Even in VA Beach an RN was fired for praying over a patient before some type of heart surgery. Then step over the line to NC and in the psych unit generalizing on purpose as most patients did carry their Bibles into the Community room and it was the norm. Now it makes you wonder if in CT if abnormal how would the dx and meds change from South? Me I'm just spiritual as wasn't brought up with religion. I've heard the NE is more religious now but I think Fairfield County were the first to hold evening Catholic services and you could wear jeans and this is back in the 70's. Phillipa

 

Re: Lou's response-whatzghoenohn Phillipa

Posted by Dinah on October 28, 2010, at 14:32:34

In reply to Re: Lou's response-whatzghoenohn Dinah, posted by Phillipa on October 25, 2010, at 22:33:22

Hmmm.... I suppose I have mixed feelings about the nurse. It would depend on the patient's feelings about the matter. I've been prayed over against my will, and it wasn't a good feeling. I think prayers against the will of the recipient perhaps ought not be done in public.

But if the patient wanted prayers, then the nurse would be praying *with* or *for* the patient rather than over him. I would find it shocking that someone would be fired for that, just as I'd be shocked for someone being fired for performing a pagan ritual for a fellow pagan.

Unless they were doing so instead of doing their duties or getting in the way of the procedure. Then I don't think that what they were fired for would be *praying* precisely.

Hard to say without knowing the facts.

 

A general reminder about site guidelines

Posted by Deputy Racer on October 28, 2010, at 14:32:34

In reply to Re: Lou's response-whatzghoenohn Dinah, posted by Phillipa on October 25, 2010, at 21:36:37

Please follow site guidelines, which include extending consideration for the feelings of your fellow posters, whether or not you agree with their views.

Most of us are familiar with the "golden rule" -- that is, the idea of treating others as we would like to be treated by others. It might be worth stopping to think, before hitting that submit button, how you would feel if what you've written about another were written about you.

This is a site focused on mental health issues, and I would like to think that those who've experienced the stigma surrounding mental illness would be more sensitive to the feelings of others.

Please keep the site guidelines in mind when posting, including the notification system. If you believe a post has violated the site guidelines, please report it to the site administrators by using the notification button. If you believe there is a problem unrelated to a specific post, please use the contact form found here: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/extras.pl#contact

Thank you
Deputy Racer

 

Lou's response- T4

Posted by Lou Pilder on October 28, 2010, at 14:32:34

In reply to Re: Lou's response-whatzghoenohn Lou Pilder, posted by Conundrum on October 25, 2010, at 18:01:09

> > Friends,
> > In relation to posts about me here, there is a part to all of this that may be unbeknownst to you. You see, it is not my intention to get people to stop their drug(s). What I am tryng to do is to save lives. I am attempting to do this by the means of education. Now I think that the more one is educated about mind-altering drugs, that they will make a more informed decision as to take them or not.
> > If you are one that wants to dispute what I post, then please do so. I have a very broad background in the history of psychotropic drugs and have a background in undergraduate chemistry. I can follow the chemical contruction of psychotropic chemicals and have an understanding that leads me to know the dangers of the chemicals to humans as to the action of the chemicals on nerve cells. I also have studied {nerve agents} and I am not permitted by a post here from Mr. Hsiung to me to post concerning the historical aspects related to those agents as to how they were devised and for what purpose.
> > Mr. Hsiung has also posted to me a threat to expel me from this community if I was to post what is the foundation of Judaism as that it has been revealed from my god to me a commandment from my god to me that I (redacted by respondent).
> > Here is an article that I think could be educational value to those that are comnsidering posting in this thread or parallel threads.
> > Lou
> > To read this article;
> > A. pull up google
> > B. Type in;
> > [Media-CCHR Australia-Citizen's Committee on Human Rights, inmates]
> > Many articles will come up and it is the first one that I see. To verify, you will see the words when pulled up;
> > "Psychiatrists Admit"
>
> Lou, you can just post the link in the thread like this:
> http://www.cchr.org.au/media.php?id=78
>
> I've read the article. The article says that Nazi psychiatrists supported eugenics and carried out atrocities.
>
> Lou, I don't know where to begin. It is just not logical to say, that since Nazi scientists carried out and supported eugenics, that psychiatry today supports those views. At that point in history, there was a great deal of thinkers that supported eugenics, spurred by social Darwinism. This idea was not just limited to psychiatrists, but to politicians, philosophers, other medical practitioners, whoever wanted to believe in the stuff, or was taught to. It also was not limited to the Nazi's but they were the most fervent believers in a pure race. So to assume that because some psychiatrists, in a country that at the time would promote those who hated other races, in the past where such ideas were common, is that same to today, is crazy.
>
> Hitler would have had those he saw unfit executed whether he found psychiatrists who agreed with him or not.
>
> Like most sciences psychiatry has evolved. People aren't carted off to the funny farm, or having parts of their brains lopped off. Just because some crazy regime tried to use psychiatry to legitimize its insanity, doe not mean that psychiatry today, is derivative to Nazi philosophies.
>
> Sure there is an element of control in psychiatry. The doctor always knows best. Its annoying in a field where there is so much guess work, but to say there is a link to the 3rd Reich is absurd.
>
> Also you mentioned God gave you a commandment. That should be a red flag to anyone reading this, that Lou is not in a completely sane state of mind. I would hope the people here would have picked up on this by now. I don't think picking on someone with a mental disorder, despite the fact they don't see themselves as having a disorder, is the purpose of this group.

Friends,
In the post that I am posting a response to, I would like for interested members to view the following video. If you could, then I think that the infomation in the video could be helpful in any response that you post here or in parallel threads.
Lou
To view this video;
A. pull up google
B. Type in;
[1. Peter Breggin MD-Psychiatry and the --The initiative-Part 1]
You will see a picture of a man at a microphone and the time is 10 min posted on March 7

 

Re: Lou's response-whatzghoenohn

Posted by Maxime on October 28, 2010, at 14:32:35

In reply to Re: Lou's response-whatzghoenohn Conundrum, posted by 10derHeart on October 25, 2010, at 18:51:53

Lou, I know that you want people to be "a discussant" in your threads. However, you never answer people's questions and they are legitimate questions. I am still waiting for you to answer some of mine and I know that Scott is also looking for a response. We are asking for a response because we are interested in what you have to say.

So typically someone would answer the questions posed by the discussants, and then the discussants would maybe state their point of view and why. You could refute what they say and provide evidence (other than a video). And the discussion would go on like that.

 

Re: Lou's response-whatzghoenohn Maxime

Posted by Conundrum on October 28, 2010, at 14:32:35

In reply to Re: Lou's response-whatzghoenohn, posted by Maxime on October 26, 2010, at 20:35:49

You're gonna be waiting for a long time. I think we are dealing with someone who is incapable, at the moment, of making any normal comments, that are not in this format. The sooner you realize someone has a problem, the more sorry for them you'll feel, and less frustrated you will become by their repetitive comments.

 

Re: Lou's response-whatzghoenohn Maxime

Posted by SLS on October 28, 2010, at 14:32:35

In reply to Re: Lou's response-whatzghoenohn, posted by Maxime on October 26, 2010, at 20:35:49

> We are asking for a response because we are interested in what you have to say.

Sadly, I am becoming less so.

I do well to ignore certain posters.


- Scott

 

Re: Lou's response-whatzghoenohn Conundrum

Posted by maxime on October 28, 2010, at 14:32:36

In reply to Re: Lou's response-whatzghoenohn Maxime, posted by Conundrum on October 27, 2010, at 0:39:07

:( Back in 2002 he used to be. I went into the archives.

I think I will just give up now.


This is the end of the thread.


Show another thread

URL of post in thread:


Psycho-Babble Faith | Extras | FAQ


[dr. bob] 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.