Just the response I expected from Vinnie.
Just the response I expected from Vinnie.
Psychology isn't about validation bro.Originally posted by Mr. G
Also in Scientology the person is never evaluated or invalidated as in Psychiatry and Psychology.
Exaxctly.
Go on.....gimme more.Originally posted by Mr. G
Exaxctly.
Invalidations?
Science?
Doctorates?
I will put it this way. No one knows you better than you do. Psychiatrists and Psychologists evaluate and invalidate people. Have you ever been evaluated? Didn't it kind of piss you off? They are at BEST rank amatures.
weird or ironic all the movies Terry mentioned are/were once TV shows ??????????? new HOLLYWOOD trend.......
I would like to see cruise and DLR intellectually throw down.........DLR would win..........
I aggree with 99% of all the Cruise comments above.............he is fucked.........
The REALITY is that Scientology is just like any other religion.
It was conceived, brought into being, and is now operated and staffed by...
PEEEPUL!!!!!
Therefore, no matter how many rules they have, people are going to break them, and there will be the same amount of corruption and politicial bullshit in that org as in any other.
They claim to be exempt somehow from the "Humans Being Imperfect" notion....as if they seem to think of themselves as somehow god-like...
One of their cardinal rules is that you can determine the problems any organization is having by looking at the rules that govern it.
They have 2 MASSIVE sets of books that look like a set of Encylopedias on Steroids....seems that they must be having a helluva lot of problems....
However, their programs are designed to do one thing...generate huge sums of KASH!!!!
GIMME DA KASH!!!!!
The great 'hook' is their personality profile.....
It is FREE (a $40.00 value).
Just take it, and they can tell you what areas of your life you are having trouble with...
And then they will offer you a whole entire program that MIGHT solve all your problems, but will DEFINITELY solve ONE of your problems....that of having to bear the terrible burden of owning any money....
They will want to sell you all kinds of books and tapes so you can achieve levels of clarity and "power".
I was once involved with them in an oblique kind of way....I soon realized I was way beyond any of them in power and spiritual awareness.....
My Alan, if you value your life, and you do NOT want to be hassled to give your entire life savings away to them, stay as far away from them as you can.
And yes...they value celebrity zealots, as the publicity value is immense...
Tom Cruise is a fucking brainwashed dumbass. If he thinks he owes his success to them, it is because that is what he believes...not necessarily what the truth is..
In all actuality, it is like all other religions in that it has a placebo effect.
If it solves your problems for ya, fine, but it will either be because you BELIEVE it has solved your troubles, or simply because it is sheer luck your lot in life has improved....
But for some great hilarity, listen to Frank Zappa's take on it on one of his Joe's Garage albums...
Hardrock69, Do you have any evidence of coruption and political leanings?
Wot a dipshit.
The Hubbard Is Bare
copyright 1992 by Jeff Jacobsen
INTRODUCTION
In June of 1989 I was in Chicago at a large used book sale, one of the largest in the country. I stumbled upon Physical Control of the Mind, by Jose Delgado. Delgado had experimented with various animals by placing electrodes in certain parts of the brain, then passing an electrical signal to those electrodes. By this process he could induce behavior in the animal. Delgado became a notorious figure to me when I had read some of his experiments while researching mind control for a college paper.
In discussing the brain's development, Delgado made the following statement about the writings of psychoanalyst Robert Sadger;
Sadger reported that when he could not relate some patients' neuroses to their embryonic periods, he induced them to recall what happened to their original spermatazoa and ova, or even to remember possible parental attitudes which could have produced a trauma in their delicate germinal cells before conception. Sadger maintained that these cells have a psychic life of their own with the capacity to learn and to remember.
This sounded strikingly like some theories I had read in Dianetics, the Modern Science of Mental Health, by L. Ron Hubbard. I had been reading and studying Hubbard's works, and had even written a tract critical of his Church of Scientology after studying the church's doctrine and history. Dianetics seemed to be full of new and unique theories and ideas, but Delgado's statement caused me to wonder whether perhaps Hubbard had not actually ripped off some of his ideas instead of discovering them. Sure enough, the reference date on Sadger's article was 1941 - eight years before Dianetics was published!
That was the beginning of the booklet you are about to read. I had studied Hubbard's works since 1986, and had taken an introductory course in about 1983 (which included some "Book one" auditing). By the time of the Chicago book sale, Hubbard's writing style, wacky theories and smugness were wearing on me, and I hoped to begin a study on electrical brain stimulation - hence the interest in Delgado. But since the revelation hit that Hubbard borrowed rather than invented his theories, it seemed to be a ripe and exciting subject to pursue.
The reason I thought this was an exciting topic was Hubbard's insistence that he came up with his ideas by himself and that they were as monumental a breakthrough from what came before as was the discovery of fire to the cavemen. If it could be shown that dianetics was simply a synthesis of previous ideas, then Hubbard would be exposed as a huckster and fraud. And I don't like hucksters and frauds.
Generally speaking, it is my contention that Hubbard did no credible research of his own. Instead he distilled ideas from books he had read, the few college courses he took, his own experiences, and his very fertile and disturbed mind, and came up with a mish-mash of bizarre theories which he wrote down in scientific-sounding phrases and words.
The ideas Hubbard borrowed were generally bizarre ideas to begin with, and his fertile, twisted mind altered and embelished them to produce an even worse hodge-podge.
It is a mammoth task to try to piece where Hubbard took ideas, since there is no definitive list of works he had read. He did in the early years of dianetics credit some people such as Korzybski, Freud, and some others, but Sadger, for example, never shows up in any credit by Hubbard. Thus, one has to pick an idea (from dianetics or some writing) and practice a little detective work to see whether the idea originated elsewhere. Of course, this bares me to criticism that I am simply reading dianetics back into some work that just happens to sound like dianetics, but in fact what I am trying to show is that almost none of the ideas in Dianetics is new or unique, as Hubbard claims. My goal is not so much to trace back to the definite source where Hubbard took ideas, but to demonstrate that his "new" and "unique" ideas are neither. But I think it is possible to show that Hubbard absolutely stole ideas from some definite sources, such as Sadger and some others without ever crediting their works. The examples I have been able to uncover I am convinced are just the tip of the iceberg. There are ideas, for example, from William L. Shirer's The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich (which coincidentally was first published in 1950) that I find markedly reflected in the organization of Scientology. Were it possible to get a list of what Hubbard read, I am certain that a very large volume could be written comparing what he read to what he wrote. It is most certainly clear that Hubbard was first and foremost a synthesizer of ideas, not a creator.
Some of the sections in this booklet are the culmination and conclusion of about 5 years' part-time research into Hubbard's teachings. I wanted to put down what I had learned in order to move on to other topics.
Actually, there should be no need to write about Hubbard's ideas at all, since most of them are so absurd and indefensible. Hubbard's writing style is grandiose, difficult, exasperating, and just plain wacky. But despite all this, there are still around 70,000 Scientologists today who consider Hubbard a genius and live their lives according to his dictates. Scientology still actively advertises and recruits the unwary, and so long as this is happening, those of us who know better must speak out and expose the lies and deceits. The way scoundrels win is by having no opposition. One of Hitler's first official acts when he became chancellor was to silence his critics. If we as critics remain silent, Scientology can go a long way, and Hubbard knew this - hence the constant attacks by Scientology on its perceived enemies.
He's always been annoying.Originally posted by academic punk
I second this.
Is it me, or it only recently that Cruise has become REALLY annoying?
It's because he's short and comes from a broken family.
Add to Ignore list
That was really funny. So this insane guy uses a sort of electroshock and say's he got it from Scientology? That was really funny. Now back to my question. You had stated that you knew of some coruption and political leanings. How about posting that.
I never stated anything regarding corruption or political leanings.Originally posted by Mr. G
You had stated that you knew of some coruption and political leanings. How about posting that.
That would've been a waste of my time.
Can ya smell the irony?
Sorry, I was talking to Hardrock69. He had stated that there was coruption and political leanings ( paraphrase) so if that is true let's see it.
ANY operation run by humans will suffer some form of corruption. Humans are not perfect.
To claim otherwise is a good demonstration of one's ignorance.
Political leanings? I said nothing about political leanings...
I said political bullshit...meaning there are people in any organization who create little fiefdoms amongst themselves, some crave power more than others, and in the end all humans have to deal with each other.
I meant nothing about politics as in Republican/Democrat or any of that crap.
Everyone who reads this has to deal with politics in one form or another.
Are you going to walk up to your boss and tell him/her/it that he/she/it is a worthless fuck??
Many people would not, for what ever reason. It is beneficial to 'get along' with everyone in the group.
Therefore one must be politically correct in dealing with others one encounters daily (in theory anyway).
I am wasting my time on this crap. This is for Tom Cruise to flap his gums about.
He and Scientology are beneath me.....
So your whole argument is based on how you "feel" about it? You are free to have any opinion you want, it's OK with me, I just thought you had some evidence. No?
Playing politics is basically diplomacy. You may not like the people your dealing with, but you want something from them or you need them to achieve an objective. So you play politics.
If you don't want to play politics, another option is to just kill the fuckers. Eliminate them and take their place.
So you can either take a Dale Carnegie course and sharpen you social and political skills or you can read numerouse books on Adolf Hitler, Saddam Hussain, and Joseph Stalin. As Chairman Mao once said,"Power grows out of a barrel of a gun."
Mr. G, yes I have direct evidence. But that is irrelevant.
I am not interested in discussing this with you, as no matter what I say, it is not a requirement that you believe any of it, and of course in the public arena, no matter what I say there will be sheeple who deny it could be possible..
It is enough to know that Scientology is no different from any other organization on the planet.
Common sense dictates that. If you are unable to comprehend it, too bad.
Live with it.
I am done discussing this.
APA responds to Tom Cruise's anti-psychiatry remarks
28 Jun 2005
The American Psychiatric Association (APA) released the following statement in response to Tom Cruise's anti-psychiatry remarks. While the APA respects the right of individuals to express their own points of view, science has proven that mental illnesses are real medical conditions that affect millions of Americans.
“It is irresponsible for Mr. Cruise to use his movie publicity tour to promote his own ideological views and deter people with mental illness from getting the care they need,” said APA President Dr. Steven S. Sharfstein.
Over the past five years, the nation has more than doubled its investment in the study of the human brain and behavior, leading to a vastly expanded understanding of postpartum depression, bipolar disorder and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Much of this research has been conducted by the National Institutes of Health and the nation's leading academic institutions.
Safe and effective treatments are available and may include talk therapy, medication or a combination of the two. Rigorous, published, peer-reviewed research clearly demonstrates that treatment works.
Medications can be an important and even life-saving part of a comprehensive and individualized treatment plan. As in other areas of medicine, medications are a safe and effective way to improve the quality of life for millions of Americans who have mental health concerns.
Mental health is a critical ingredient of overall health. It is unfortunate that in the face of this remarkable scientific and clinical progress that a small number of individuals and groups persist in questioning its legitimacy.
The diagnosis of a mental illness no longer carries the fear or shame it once did, according to a recent APA consumer survey. Nearly 90 percent of Americans surveyed correctly believe that people with mental illness can live healthy lives and an overwhelming majority (80 percent) feels confident that mental health treatment works. Study findings also show that nearly 70 percent of people surveyed view going to a psychiatrist as a sign of strength.
“We know that treatment works,” said APA Medical Director James H. Scully Jr., M.D. “And since safe, effective treatments are available, Americans can have what everyone wants - healthy minds and healthy lives.”
=V V=
ole No.1 The finest
EAT US AND SMILE
Brooke Shields responds to Cruise's comments:
"Tom should stick to saving the world from aliens and let women decide what treatment is best."
Originally posted by POJO_Risin
I'm not one to preach drugs for kids...I hate them to be honest...but you see it all the time in my profession...
does it help some kids? Sure it does...absolutely it does...AND THERE IS SCIENTIFIC proof that they work.
Of course there are other ways to do it...of course there are...
but let me ask you all this? Why is it easy for Oprah and Cruise and all the others to stay fit...and to eat healthy...and to take care of themselves? Money...plain and simple...
diet and other things can cure the types of disorders that keep kids from focusing...absolutely...but tell me how a middle of the road parent can afford the health counseling that would be needed to do it? and no...it sure the fuck wouldn't be convered under your health insurance...
Tom Cruise is a fucking idiot...plain and simple...
Yes...and their kids won't ever see the ghetto, much less grow up in it.
Ole Tom cruise is gay
Tom Cruise and Rob Thomas caught in bed
Permalink | Tuesday - June 28, 2005
If there's one thing I know, it's that random gossip from total strangers based on absolutely no facts is true about 100% of the time. That said, here's an email that reader Rob decided to forward in.
So, I work with this girl who has a family friend that works in PR in Hollywood, and she always has fun little scoops about celeb stuff. Well, if this is true, this is just ridiculous! So, the whole Tom Cruise/Katie Holmes thing - apparently, it is, like we all thought anyway, a ridiculous PR thing. Tom Cruise was supposedly caught in bed with Rob Thomas (the lead singer of Matchbox 20) by Rob Thomas's wife, Marisol. Rob Thomas is also a Scientologist. Obviously, nobody wanted this to get out, and Marisol was going nuts threatening to expose them. I think that she might be getting paid off, but to preempt any rumors about Tom, the Scientology people as well as Tom's PR people basically recruited Katie Holmes to play this part of Tom's super-excited girlfriend, and they are just paying her a b*ttload of money. I guess they also woo'd her with promises of what this would do for her career, since she's at best a B-lister. But I guess now Marisol is so annoyed at all of the press Tom and Katie's relationship is getting, she's threatening to go public, spill the beans, and file for divorce.
Sure, why not.
There are those that do and those that don't. Those that didn't see what those that did had done and wish they had especially when "She looked so F#*kin GOOD"
So Hardrock69 say's he has evidence but he won't post it. Gee I wonder what that means. Of course the APA doesn't mention that the FDA is putting homicide and suicide warnings on Psych drugs now. Gee I wonder what that means. So far all the Pro Psych people go out of thier way to ignore that fact.
Just a couple of weeks ago Cruise did an interview whilst out here to promote his new flick with 60 minutes,here in Australia.Originally posted by MAX
G'Day Mark!!!
What kind of shit did he do while in Oz?
The journalist who did the interview was told he had to go to a couple of hours lecture on scientology if he wanted the interview.
Anyhow the journalist went along to the lecture so he could do the interview.
The 1st question asked of Cruise was why did I have to go to the scientology lecture to have this interview?
Cruise told him that he didn't have to go.
Then the journalist asked him how Cruise felt about people who thought the religion was for freaks,Cruise got angry as with the journalist and said nobody has ever said that to him before.
Then the journalist asked Cruise about Niciole,Cruise told him to put his manners back in and that he was stepping way out of bounds here.
The journalist then told Tom that these are questions people want to know about,Tom's reply was that only he wanted to know about them.
It was pretty funny,and then at the end Cruise thanked him on the interview,patted him on the back and said great interview.
People here think his a dick more than ever now.
I believe that's for on anti-depressants for kids for example. Let's not make sweeping generalizations.Originally posted by Mr. G
So Hardrock69 say's he has evidence but he won't post it. Gee I wonder what that means. Of course the APA doesn't mention that the FDA is putting homicide and suicide warnings on Psych drugs now. Gee I wonder what that means. So far all the Pro Psych people go out of thier way to ignore that fact.
I wonder if Scientologists are now "investigating" MATT LAUER like they tend to do to intimidate any critics or questioners?
With these freaks, you just never know.Originally posted by Nickdfresh
I wonder if Scientologists are now "investigating" MATT LAUER like they tend to do to intimidate any critics or questioners?
Cruise is off his rocker.Originally posted by BOMBER
Just a couple of weeks ago Cruise did an interview whilst out here to promote his new flick with 60 minutes,here in Australia.
The journalist who did the interview was told he had to go to a couple of hours lecture on scientology if he wanted the interview.
Anyhow the journalist went along to the lecture so he could do the interview.
The 1st question asked of Cruise was why did I have to go to the scientology lecture to have this interview?
Cruise told him that he didn't have to go.
Then the journalist asked him how Cruise felt about people who thought the religion was for freaks,Cruise got angry as with the journalist and said nobody has ever said that to him before.
Then the journalist asked Cruise about Niciole,Cruise told him to put his manners back in and that he was stepping way out of bounds here.
The journalist then told Tom that these are questions people want to know about,Tom's reply was that only he wanted to know about them.
It was pretty funny,and then at the end Cruise thanked him on the interview,patted him on the back and said great interview.
People here think his a dick more than ever now.
What an idiot.
The more he opens his mouth, the more people hate him.
Shields Rips Cruise's 'Ridiculous Rant'
Jul 1, 7:29 AM EST
The Associated Press
NEW YORK -- Brooke Shields took aim at Tom Cruise's "Today" show diatribe against antidepressants, saying the drugs helped her survive feelings of hopelessness after the birth of her first child. In an op-ed piece published Friday in The New York Times, Shields criticized what she called Cruise's "ridiculous rant."
Cruise had criticized the actress for taking the drugs, and became particularly passionate about the issue in an interview on "Today" last week.
"You don't know the history of psychiatry. I do," Cruise told Matt Lauer.
He went on to say there was no such thing as chemical imbalances that need to be corrected with drugs, and that depression could be treated with exercise and vitamins.
"I'm going to take a wild guess and say that Mr. Cruise has never suffered from postpartum depression," Shields wrote.
She added that Cruise's comments "are a disservice to mothers everywhere. To suggest that I was wrong to take drugs to deal with my depression, and that instead I should have taken vitamins and exercised shows an utter lack of understanding about postpartum depression and childbirth in general."
Shields said she considered swallowing a bottle of pills or jumping out the window at the lowest point of her depression following the birth of her daughter, Rowan Francis, in 2003. A doctor later attributed her feelings to a plunge in her estrogen and progesterone levels and prescribed the antidepressant Paxil.
"If any good can come of Mr. Cruise's ridiculous rant, let's hope that it gives much-needed attention to a serious disease," she wrote.
Shields described her post-childbirth experiences in the book "Down Came the Rain: My Journey Through Postpartum Depression."
Cruise is a follower of Scientology, a religion that teaches that psychiatry is a destructive pseudo-science.
In an interview with AP Radio Wednesday night, Kelly Preston, who is also a Scientologist, defended the actor's "Today" show comments about Shields.
"If you're going to be advocating drugs, which she does in her book, you need to be responsible for also telling the people of the potential risks."
Preston also said Cruise's heated debate with Lauer was "very helpful because it's just raised awareness. People are talking about it now, and that's what they should be."
"Whatever your political, social or religious background, this is an issue that affects all of us," she said. "It is not just a Scientology issue."
That shit can be quite serious. Sometimes more like a psychosis than a depression.
Yeah...give the ol' gal some vitamins...she'll be fine.
He'd probably just divorce her ass.
“Why do people say "grow some balls"? Balls are weak and sensitive. If you wanna be tough, grow a vagina. Those things can take a pounding” ― Betty White
I think Brooke can take Tom out in a fight. She's freakin twice his height and the Napoleon complex ain't gonna scare her one bit.
Maybe those dudes that squirted him with water threw some prozac in and it got in his eyes?
Now he's trippin' on liquid eye acid!
The FDA Making Treatment Safe for “Chemical Imbalances” That Don’t Exist By Fred A. Baughman Jr., MD Fellow, American Academy of Neurology June 28, 2005
1. Expressing concern about “psychiatric risks”, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) intends to change the warnings for drugs used to treat Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). The drugs they refer to are amphetamine-like, Schedule II products: Concerta, Ritalin, Adderall (an amphetamine banned in Canada but not the US) and Strattera. The psychiatric side effects mentioned in the FDA’s release, “FDA: Concerned With Psychiatric Risks With ADHD Drugs,” are “visual hallucinations, suicidal ideation, psychotic behavior, as well as aggression or violent behavior.” But these are not psychiatric side effects at all—they are signs of intoxication, poisoning and brain abnormality because they appear following the administration of a drug, in subjects who were medically normal prior to taking the drug.
How can I say they were medically normal prior to taking the drug? They had ADHD, didn’t they? Psychiatry tells everyone that ADHD is a “disease” and a “chemical imbalance” of the brain, don’t they?
This brings us to the Tom Cruise-Matt Lauer debate on the Today Show, Friday, June 24, 2005, in which Mr. Cruise charged, most importantly, that, “psychiatry is a pseudoscience.”
In a follow-up Today Show on Monday, June 27, 2005, Harvard psychiatrist, Dr. Joseph Glenmullen—one of their own—made clear that psychiatric disorders are not something abnormal within the brain. While pharmaceutical ads and psychiatrist/physician disclosures to patients for purposes of informed consent, routinely portray psychiatric disorders as chemical imbalances/diseases, they are not—not a single one! Not schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder, ADHD, post-traumatic stress disorder, oppositional-defiant disorder (ODD), conduct disorder (CD), nor any kind of depression.
Knowing these were the indisputable facts of the matter, psychiatrist Steven Sharfstein of the American Psychiatric Association had no rebuttal. Their “disease” lie was out of the bag. He lamely stated that insurance doesn’t pay for anything but drugs as though this is justification for drugging 20% of the nation’s entirely normal schoolchildren.
Mr. Cruise has done incalculable good for the American people, who are drugged to the gills in the name of “treatment” for invented, fictitious “chemical imbalances.” He has shed the light of day on a fraud.
This brings us back to the FDA and their professed efforts to learn the true “risk vs. benefit balance” for the drugs listed above when used for the fictitious “chemical imbalance” ADHD. This is no light matter considering that 6-7 million U.S. children have been diagnosed/branded with this disorder. Virtually all of them are taking one or more of these drugs which concern the FDA and which will be the subject of a pediatric advisory committee meeting this Wednesday and Thursday.
Now we know the child diagnosed with ADHD is a normal child, and that the only potential for physical harm to them comes from the drugs/chemicals/compounds/poisons, the FDA states are safe, effective and necessary. When did the FDA cease to be a protector of the people? When did they become a part of the industry they were to help regulate?
Through the years of the invented ADD and ADHD epidemics, the FDA has joined psychiatry in speaking of these and all psychiatric “disorders” as if they were actual physical abnormalities/diseases, and drugging children with these addictive, dangerous, deadly drugs, as if they were. But thanks now to Mr. Cruise and to Dr. Glenmullen, we have had our eyes and minds opened to the reality that psychiatry is a pseudoscience, a fraud and a “pusher” of drugs and that there is no such thing as a “chemical imbalance.”
People have been bitching about ritalin for YEARS.
Guess what? Malpractice accusations are through the roof. What about a good ol' fashion LOBOTOMY? You know, a spike to the cerebellum through the eye socket. It's no small wonder the shit comes in pill form now, eh?
Carl Sagan's
Baloney Detection Kit
Based on the book "The Demon Haunted World: Science as a candle in the dark" published by Headline 1996.
The following are suggested as tools for testing arguments and detecting fallacious or fraudulent arguments:
* Wherever possible there must be independent confirmation of the facts
* Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all points of view.
* Arguments from authority carry little weight (in science there are no "authorities").
* Spin more than one hypothesis - don't simply run with the first idea that caught your fancy.
* Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just because it's yours.
* Quantify, wherever possible.
* If there is a chain of argument every link in the chain must work.
* "Occam's razor" - if there are two hypothesis that explain the data equally well choose the simpler.
* Ask whether the hypothesis can, at least in principle, be falsified (shown to be false by some unambiguous test). In other words, it is testable? Can others duplicate the experiment and get the same result?
Additional issues are
* Conduct control experiments - especially "double blind" experiments where the person taking measurements is not aware of the test and control subjects.
* Check for confounding factors - separate the variables.
Common fallacies of logic and rhetoric
* Ad hominem - attacking the arguer and not the argument.
* Argument from "authority".
* Argument from adverse consequences (putting pressure on the decision maker by pointing out dire consequences of an "unfavourable" decision).
* Appeal to ignorance (absence of evidence is not evidence of absence).
* Special pleading (typically referring to god's will).
* Begging the question (assuming an answer in the way the question is phrased).
* Observational selection (counting the hits and forgetting the misses).
* Statistics of small numbers (such as drawing conclusions from inadequate sample sizes).
* Misunderstanding the nature of statistics (President Eisenhower expressing astonishment and alarm on discovering that fully half of all Americans have below average intelligence!)
* Inconsistency (e.g. military expenditures based on worst case scenarios but scientific projections on environmental dangers thriftily ignored because they are not "proved").
* Non sequitur - "it does not follow" - the logic falls down.
* Post hoc, ergo propter hoc - "it happened after so it was caused by" - confusion of cause and effect.
* Meaningless question ("what happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object?).
* Excluded middle - considering only the two extremes in a range of possibilities (making the "other side" look worse than it really is).
* Short-term v. long-term - a subset of excluded middle ("why pursue fundamental science when we have so huge a budget deficit?").
* Slippery slope - a subset of excluded middle - unwarranted extrapolation of the effects (give an inch and they will take a mile).
* Confusion of correlation and causation.
* Straw man - caricaturing (or stereotyping) a position to make it easier to attack..
* Suppressed evidence or half-truths.
* Weasel words - for example, use of euphemisms for war such as "police action" to get around limitations on Presidential powers. "An important art of politicians is to find new names for institutions which under old names have become odious to the public"
Above all - read the book!
I am on Zoloft now, and the sky always looks great to me.
Tom Cruise is a dick and needs to shut up, Zoloft saved my ass from seriously going crazy, just ask Ford, or anyone who was around the last couple of years reading my shit on this board.
The problem with Antidepressants is that people don't take them like they should. I would take them for awhile and then stop, and that was bad ju ju for the Catster.
I have fixed that problem and i was then able to cope with all the shit i have to deal with on a daily basis.
It's like clockwork now and i feel great, and believe me, that is at the very least a 95% improvement for me.
I do however agree that they are not for everyone.
Different people have different needs and what works for one person may not work for another.
Originally posted by Cathedral
It's like clockwork now and i feel great, and believe me, that is at the very least a 95% improvement for me.
That's great to hear, Cat.
Take care!
Originally posted by Cathedral
I am on Zoloft now, and the sky always looks great to me.
Tom Cruise is a dick and needs to shut up, Zoloft saved my ass from seriously going crazy, just ask Ford, or anyone who was around the last couple of years reading my shit on this board.
The problem with Antidepressants is that people don't take them like they should. I would take them for awhile and then stop, and that was bad ju ju for the Catster.
I have fixed that problem and i was then able to cope with all the shit i have to deal with on a daily basis.
It's like clockwork now and i feel great, and believe me, that is at the very least a 95% improvement for me.
I do however agree that they are not for everyone.
Different people have different needs and what works for one person may not work for another.
That's great, man.
Take care.
Fuck Cruise and his Scientology Bullshit!
July 03, 2005
The trouble with Tom Cruise
Brooke Shields explains why a film star’s advice on her essential medication is uninformed meddling
I was hoping it wouldn’t come to this, but after Tom Cruise’s interview with Matt Lauer on the NBC show Today, I feel compelled to speak not just for myself but also for the hundreds of thousands of women who have suffered from postpartum depression.
While Cruise says that Lauer and I do not “understand the history of psychiatry”, I’m going to take a wild guess and say that Cruise has never suffered from postpartum depression.
Postpartum depression is caused by the hormonal shifts that occur after childbirth. During pregnancy a woman’s level of oestrogen and progesterone greatly increases; then, in the first 24 hours after childbirth, the amount of these hormones rapidly drops to normal, non-pregnant levels. This change in hormone levels can lead to reactions that range from restlessness and irritability to feelings of sadness and hopelessness.
I never thought that I would have postpartum depression. After two years of trying to conceive and several attempts at in vitro fertilisation, I thought that I would be overjoyed when my daughter, Rowan Francis, was born in the spring of 2003. But instead I felt completely overwhelmed.
This baby was a stranger to me. I didn’t know what to do with her. I didn’t feel at all joyful. I attributed feelings of doom to simple fatigue and figured that they would eventually go away. But they didn’t; in fact, they got worse.
I couldn’t bear the sound of Rowan crying, and I dreaded the moments when my husband would bring her to me. I wanted her to disappear. I wanted to disappear. At my lowest points, I thought of swallowing a bottle of pills or jumping out of the window of my apartment.
I couldn’t believe it when my doctor told me that I was suffering from postpartum depression and gave me a prescription for the anti-depressant Paxil. I wasn’t thrilled to be taking drugs. In fact, I prematurely stopped taking them and had a relapse that almost led me to drive my car into a wall with Rowan in the back seat. But the drugs, along with weekly therapy sessions, are what saved me — and my family.
Since writing about my experiences, I have been approached by many women who have told me their stories and thanked me for opening up about a topic that is often not discussed because of fear, shame or lack of support and information.
Experts estimate that one in 10 women suffers, usually in silence, with this treatable disease. We are living in an era of so-called family values, yet because almost all of the postnatal focus is on the baby, mothers are overlooked and left behind to endure what can be very dark times.
Comments like those made by Cruise are a disservice to mothers everywhere. To suggest that I was wrong to take drugs to deal with my depression and that instead I should have taken vitamins and exercised shows an utter lack of understanding about postpartum depression and childbirth in general.
If any good can come of Cruise’s ridiculous rant, let’s hope that it gives much-needed attention to a serious condition. Perhaps now is the time to call on doctors, particularly obstetricians and paediatricians, to screen for postpartum depression. After all, during the first three months after childbirth you see a paediatrician at least three times.
While paediatricians are trained to take care of children, it would make sense for them to talk to new mothers, ask questions and inform them of the symptoms and treatment should they show signs of postpartum depression.
In a strange way, it was comforting to me when my obstetrician told me that my feelings of extreme despair and my suicidal thoughts were directly tied to a biochemical shift in my body. Once we admit that postpartum is a serious medical condition, then the treatment becomes more available and socially acceptable. With a doctor’s care I have since tapered off the medication, but without it I wouldn’t have become the loving parent that I am today.
So there you have it. It’s not the history of psychiatry but it is my history, personal and real.
Brooke Shields is starring in the musical Chicago in London and is author of Down Came the Rain: My Journey Through Postpartum Depression. This article first appeared in The New York Times
"MAKE MONEY. MAKE MORE MONEY. MAKE OTHER PEOPLE PRODUCE SO AS TO MAKE MORE MONEY."
- L. Ron Hubbard, HCOPL 9 March 1972, MS OEC 384
"Having viewed slum clearance projects in most major cities of the world may I state that you have conceived and created in the Johannesburg townships what is probably the most impressive and adequate resettlement activity in existence."
- L. Ron Hubbard, Letter to South African Apartheid Government, 1960
"THE ONLY WAY YOU CAN CONTROL PEOPLE IS TO LIE TO THEM. You can write that down in your book in great big letters. The only way you can control anybody is to lie to them."
- L. Ron Hubbard, Technique 88
Never discuss Scientology with the critic. Just discuss his or her crimes, known and unknown.
- L. Ron Hubbard
"Whenever he was talking about being hard up he often used to say that he thought the easiest way to make money would be to start a religion."
-- reporter Neison Himmel: quoted in Bare Faced Messiah p.117 from 1986 interview. Himmel shared a room with LRH, briefly, Pasadena, fall 1945.
"I always knew he was exceedingly anxious to hit big money - he used to say he thought the best way to do it would be to start a cult."
-- Sam Merwin, then the editor of the Thrilling SF magazines: quoted in Bare Faced Messiah p.133 from 1986 interview. Winter of 1946/47.
"Around this time he was invited to address a science fiction group in Newark hosted by the writer, Sam Moskowitz. `Writing for a penny a word is ridiculous,' he told the meeting. `If a man really wanted to make a million dollars, the best way to do it would be start his own religion.'
-- Bare Faced Messiah p.148. Reference given to LA Times, 27 Aug 78. Supposed to have happened in spring 1949.
"Science fiction editor and author Sam Moscowitz tells of the occasion when Hubbard spoke before the Eastern Science Fiction Association in Newark, New Jersey in 1947: `Hubbard spoke ... I don't recall his exact words; but in effect, he told us that writing science fiction for about a penny a word was no way to make a living. If you really want to make a million, he said, the quickest way is to start your own religion.'"
Thanks Sesh!
There you go, Mr. G.
Scientology = BS
I didn't even get started...
To join you need to sign a non disclosure contract and to confirm that you are not a journalist or writer otherwise they sue your ass off.
That and the fact you have to pay money to get each bit of further information of the Truth means that there isn't as much info about these crooks around as you would expect.
I think the core of the religion has something to do with a big alien dragon that lives on a volcano(honestly...) but I cunt be bothered looking it up at the moment.
Cheers!
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
