posted December 10, 2006 09:56 PM         

LISTEN UP, EVERYBODY-

I have finally come up with what I personally consider a practical idea to, on a primary level, clarify the subject matter passionately debated, and meanwhile, on a secondary level, also my intentions of posting what I had to say upon the issue at hand:

American Psychiatric Association www.psych.org

1000, Wilson Boulevard, Suite 1825, Arlington, VA 22209-3901

703-907-7322 or 800-368-5777
Fax: 703-907-1091
appi@psych.org

The definitive textbook, mandatory for all American psychiatrists and those in many other countries in other parts of the world as well, the publication by American Psychiatric Association:

The book title is:

DSM-IV-TR
Mental Disorders
Diagnosis, Etiology and Treatment

With its text revision sister guide

Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders
Fourth Edition
Text Revision
DSM-IV-TR

Please feel free to contact American Psychiatric Association should you feel like doing so, and in case you are truly interested and care enough to really know what the personality disorders are about, and not be satisfied with distortion and manipulation of any sort, but the truth and the truth only-

At least, on the positive side, apparently so many of you seem curious and concerned about learning more on personality disorders. I have figured that the only way to bring the heated argument to an end, and a relatively constructive and positive one, is to simply give you the contact information of the authority of the psychiatric profession in the USA- American Psychiatric Association.

Please do ensure that should you gain access to a copy of DSM-IV, be it at a library, a med school library, or a bookstore- since those of you who have participated in the topic discussion initiated by Mirandee, once again, allow me to remind you that if you are truly, and earnestly interested in getting to know the personality disorders in their entirety, rather than partially and consequently incompletely, please make sure you read the entire chapter on personality disorders. This does take some time to finish reading, but it's in English. If I can read it, then you can read it. No sweat.

I would like to gently but firmly remind you that in the chapter of personality disorders, certain other mental conditions are mentioned in order to discuss differential diagnosis, in other words, to urge the students or professionals to do their utmost not to misdiagnose patients, and such brought-up for comparison illnesses are schizophrenia, mood disorders with psychotic features, or other psychotic disorders, all either with or without influence from a general medical condition or induction from a substance; I strongly suggest that you would better read the whole chapters concerning the aforementioned mental illnesses as well, again- provided that you are interested in knowing the nature of these disorders for real, and not to form severely distorted and/or stereotypical, biased, assumed views. In so doing can you stand a better chance of benefiting yourselves and those that you know whom some of you folks have considered or concluded that have to do with such disorders. Please, the solution presented here is an easy one to use.

To sum up, when discussing personality disorders, in the case of our recent LL circulation of the multiple post started by the same person, one can without much difficulty to sense that the topic starter has been more engaged in speaking of narcissistic personality disorder than speaking of all the rest of those; the thread title indicates traits of narcissistic AND other personality disorders, with a list of over 40 so-called characteristics, which, to some of you, is evidently profoundly misleading as such a method of presenting these disorders only too easily cause the public to presume that the rest of the personality disorders might just as well all share more than enough traits with one single specific personality disorder or another, and in this instance, clearly it has been narcissistic personality disorder. Besides, if you read DSM-IV, which I am quite convinced that you can do as easily as you can get as long as you read English, you would be much better informed on all the subtlety and intricate, interconnected factors of the importance of, and prudence that required for, making accurate diagnosis on any specific personality disorder, but meanwhile also with principles to be taken into account and be treated with caution and taken seriously.

Please contact American Psychiatric Association if you are really interested in personality disorders and if you don't like being misinformed and misunderstand either yourselves, your loved ones, or anybody else. www.psych.org

Best of luck.

Kind regards,
D for Defiant

posted December 11, 2006 09:26 PM         

Drugs drugs drugs. Welcome to the Prozac Universe.

posted December 12, 2006 08:45 AM         

quote:

---

its worst sense- "enterprise".

---

Its only sense is enterprise.

When is the last time the Pharma/medical industries cured anything?

Some might point to the distant cure for polio, but there are some scientists who believe that even that disease was ready to end its natural course on its own.

A drug might temporarily alleviate some symptoms, while dumping more toxic chemicals into an already unbalanced system. The pharma and medical industries are only interested in keeping you sick, unwell, and addicted to drugs. And frankly, anyone who believes anything else has blinders on.

I am not interested in reading disinformation from anyone associated with the pharma industry.

I've said my peace/piece, andI wish you well.

posted December 12, 2006 08:49 AM         

quote:

---

None of us are qualfiied to diagnose the conditon of another human being.....
There are so many theories and opinions out there, maybe it is a good idea to just stay away from labelling people with certain "illnesses". Despite extensive research, they are mans' mere observations.....which can result in inaccuracies.

---

However, if you like living in a box with a label, wear it proudly. If you like taking drugs, enjoy them and stop worrying about these silly arguments.

If you like healing, then seek it. Begin with your body, and the fuel you put into it.

posted December 13, 2006 11:27 PM         

Imagine if the great philosophers, writers and artists followed that sort of flawed thinking...

posted December 14, 2006 09:00 AM         

quote:

---

Imagine if the great philosophers, writers and artists followed that sort of flawed thinking...

---

Flawed thinking?
Frankly, I don't see the relevance, Mare. Philosophers, et al, do not diagnose or prescribe mind- and health-altering drugs.

And really, to follow your train of thought, let's employ John Lennon's "Imagine." Without the philosophers, astrologers, etc., analyzing and telling us how to see others, perhaps, just perhaps, we would be less judgemental.

Who knows? I am but an egg.

D4D, I will get back to you...

posted December 14, 2006 02:06 PM         

quote:

---

Without the philosophers, astrologers, etc., analyzing and telling us how to see others, perhaps, just perhaps, we would be less judgemental.

---

posted December 14, 2006 03:55 PM         

I understood Sue's quote as a reference to labelling. I don't see any reference to drugs, mind or health-altering, contained in her remarks. Unless I am mistaken, the topic from where that quote was taken was a discussion about diagnostic labelling. I don't see the relevance of your reference to drugs as it relates to this topic.

As far as my comments, please let me clarify. In my opinion Sue's quote, whether intentional or not, implies a judgement that no one is qualified to comment on, explain or label the condition of another human being since such judgements are based on "man's mere observations...which can result in inaccuracies." Does this line of logic apply to philosphers, poets, writers, artists, etc.? Or does it only apply to the medical/scientific community? Just because something is misunderstood or misapplied at times does not mean it has no value whatsoever and should be avoided.

As far as my comment:

"Following that line of logic, all you'd have to do is replace the word "illnesses" with "tendencies" and one could assume that quote referred to astrology."

This was meant as an illustration of the unfairness inherent in such a generalization. How easily such a notion could be applied to almost anything, for example astrology.

If I understand your reference to John Lennon correctly, it is from the same place I am coming from. Thank goodness no one told John Lennon he should stay away from labelling human conditions...

posted December 14, 2006 04:17 PM         

My understanding of Sue's quote, which indeed may be only interpretation, was in context to the discussion in its original thread, where a debate seemed to be raging on the labels the psychiatric industry imposes on those who seek treatment for various behaviors or tendencies. In a sea of hostility, I loved the innocence of it. She referred to illnesses, Mare. The discussion didn't wade into the waters of artistic of philosphical pursuits. One can stretch it, certainly, but sometimes, context is everything.

As for substituting "illnesses" for "tendencies," and applying it to astrology, certainly the logic does apply, and I agree with you. I've been a resident at LL for a long time, and while many of us seem to think we breathe the rarefied air of the enlightened, time and again I have read "I don't like Leos" or "Geminis are fickle" or "Scorpios are secretive" or "Aries like to fight." Are these things true? Are they the totality of a person? And if so, should a Gemini be treated or rehabilitated to fit what we think is a norm? Should I dislike a person because he is a Virgo/Black/Muslim/Bipolar?

Imagine indeed.
We are One, but we are not the same.

D for D, I am sorry, but I haven't the time to read your entire posts. I understand that you suffer, but I can't seem to get to the core of your issues through your ramblings. If you are comfortable taking drugs for your diagnoses, then by all means, ignore everything that anyone says and listen only to yourself. If you desire to get off drugs and "heal" what you perceive to be unwell in yourself, there are myriad ways and places, and the research begins with a click. It is a wonderful time to be alive and seek more wellness.

posted December 14, 2006 05:02 PM         

I was referring to illness...didnt I mention that a couple of times?

Not sure where the artistic, philosophy stuff comes in...

My issues are with mind control through drugs and mis diagnosis...from psychiatrists/psychologists.

And not an artist in sight.....

I was referring to the danger of the medical profession slapping labels on people and then treating them accordingly....or not accordingly, as the case may be.

We can heal ourselves as Trillian so wisely stated... We dont need a so called professional to tell us what we may or may not be....!

posted December 15, 2006 08:14 AM         

Please, see if for yourselves.

But mind your steps to not fall into the traps of further disputes and hatred. Please do your best to boycott hate crime.

I have to quote a post of Pidaua's

quote: http://www.linda-goodman.com/ubb/Forum10/HTML/002540-3.html

pidaua
Knowflake
Posts: 6331
From: Arizona - Moving to Germany to be with Bear the Leo
Registered: May 2002

posted December 11, 2006 02:23 PM

Zala....
It is right here:

"Lotus, Maybe it was Pidaua's negativity and her constant remarks about Ginny having brain damage that caused her cancer. Did you ever think of that? I mean with all your talk on the power of negativity and karma and all that one would think the thought might occur to you.
Evil wishes and hate directed at others can be a powerful thing."- Mirandee http://www.linda-goodman.com/ubb/Forum16/HTML/002922-3.html

"Pid can't take back her words. It is over and done with. But hopefully she would learn from this experience what harm her words can have on others. When she personally attacks people on the computer she has no way of knowing what is going on in the life of that person on the other side of her screen. Actually for that reason Pidaua could be endangering herself. It is no safer online to attack people verbally than it would be offline face to face. People can Google a map right to your doorstep so that is another reason why it is not a good idea. " http://www.linda-goodman.com/ubb/Forum16/HTML/002991.html

In fact the entire second thread was a direct attack on me and then we were treated to multiple "narcissist" threads, again, directed at me. See, when you call someone a narcissist repeatedly AND you then use those same descriptors in various threads aimed at "innocently" pointing out a disorder... it is evident what the intent actually is- are we just randomly being treated to information concerning a real live disorder? There wasn't even any relevant information attached to the actual disorder itself. Now anyone that questions the intent of these mulitple threads, which are lacking evidence from the psych associations, they are called liars and enablers.

In essence, blaming ME for a tragic circumstance because of vile words exchanged between myself and another knowflake. Vile words on BOTH parts.. or as juniperb said so eloquently;

"juniperb
Knowflake
Posts: 6187
From: Blue Star Kachina
Registered: Mar 2002
posted December 04, 2006 12:27 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I found I have the full 5 pages as well in my history.
Pids words speak for themselves. I do not defend them as I do not Rainbows. Both blades cut sharply. Tragically, Rainbows were being propagated by a physical illness.

__________________________

A narcissist does not say sorry nor do they reach out, apologize for their actions and wish to put a stop to the negative actions that continue on thread after thread along with more attacks. Someone with those qualities would actually feed off the negativity and use it to promote their own anger.

I attribute it to grief... and I have been staying away from these episodes. But there is a time when I feel like I need to defend myself and expose the actions of those that continue to blame me for things I didn't do or threaten me with veiled violence as though I don't realize that I could anger someone online, such as here, and have them google where I live.

This is in line with that same person telling me they will go 8 Mile on me and knock me down. How many threats should I take before finally getting angry - or is it now proper to be so hypocritical that we can blame one knowflake for making stupid remarks yet not only everyone else accountable?

"Now are you really sure your are a "strong" enough woman to take me on, Pidaua? I don't think so. I think all you are is a loud mouthed trouble maker and a coward who wouldn't dare say the things or do the things to people in your offline life that you do on the internet for fear of being knocked down. Because personally lady, I come from Detroit, grew up on the 8 mile corridor, and I would have knocked you on your smart a$$ long ago if you did. I may be 60 but I am still in good shape.

If you want some more b!tch slapping just keep coming at me, Pidaua. I will gladly oblige you. But if you are half as smart as you say you are, I wouldn't recommend it. This was mild compared to what I can lay on you. " http://www.linda-goodman.com/ubb/Forum16/HTML/002922-2.html

The last post was a full week before anything happened. This was just pure Mirandee at her worst yet not taking responsibility for it. So if had been the victim of a violent crime two days after that statement- would others be able to blame Mirandee?

Now, I consider it not very wise for me to say this, regarding my disposition in this chaos, but-

The following has been included as one of the links provided by Pidaua, which I have quoted above:
http://www.linda-goodman.com/ubb/Forum16/HTML/002991.html

Mirandee
Knowflake
Posts: 1965
From: South of the Thumb Taurus, Pisces, Cancer
Registered: Sep 2004

posted December 04, 2006 02:12 AM

quote:
I will also say this, lay off of Lialei. Not only does she love Ginny dearly but she was also on that Mirandee thread defending her mother against the attacks because she knows me better than anyone and she knows what my intentions truly were. Anyone would defend their own mother. However what Lia said she meant from the bottom of her heart as she always does.

re-quote from the above quote:
Anyone would defend their own mother.

When debating, more than simply discussing, a very serious and comlicated, even controversial matter, involvment of a family member, or a close friend, etc, would already make the scene look even more partial.

-"Anyone would defend their own mother"- and a statement like this has come from someone who claims she has studied "psychology" (P.S. such difficult mental disorders as personality disorders, are, technically speaking, part of the field of psychiatry- why didn't the person dare use the term "psychiatry"?)- is just biased. Not that I come from a not-so-supportive family myself, so I would perceive others are the same as me, or hope they are like me- I've lived with a few families, they functioned well, so to speak- they got along with one another and I was pleased to have known them and hanging out with them, okay? But "Anyone would defend their own mother"-

That does not sound like someone who claims herself having studied "psychology" and thinks herself authoritarian enough to post a list in the name of "informing and educating", when she herself is NOT even a practicing psychiatrist, besides-

Fayte would never agree with that statement.

posted December 15, 2006 11:48 PM         

Perhaps you should also mention that to Pidaua and her husband Leo Bear, DFD.

In a healthy, loving mother/daughter relationship it would seem quite normal for a daughter to defend her mother against distortions, lies and an outright campaign to smear her mother's character. The same thing might not apply to an unhealthy mother/daughter relationship.

I am once again going to have to post what I actually said on that thread and the omission that DFD, Pidaua and SueG keep posting which distorts the truth.

I am once again going to have to explain the context in which I said this which was in an attempt to point out to Lotus the contradiction in her thinking and reasoning. That while telling me that my "negativity" would somehow affect Rainbow's health but the same thing did not apply to Pidaua's or anyone else's negativity.

This is what I actually said and what DFD, SueG and Pidaua keep omitting is the part where I stated " I do not really believe this." And I DON'T believe that anyone has the power to give another human being an illness such as Rainbow has. This is probably at least the 10th time I have stated this.

I bolded the part that keeps getting omitted around here.

Mirandee
Knowflake

Posts: 1956
From: South of the Thumb Taurus, Pisces, CancerRegistered: Sep 2004

posted December 01, 2006 01:25 PM "TYPE=PICT;ALT=ClickHeretoSeetheProfileforMirandee"

"TYPE=PICT;ALT=Edit/DeleteMessage"

Lotus, Maybe it was Pidaua's negativity and her constant remarks about Ginny having brain damage that caused her cancer. Did you ever think of that? I mean with all your talk on the power of negativity and karma and all that one would think the thought might occur to you.

Evil wishes and hate directed at others can be a powerful thing.

Though I don't really believe that but as long you are directing just the negativity at me it is something for you think about????

However, can verbal abuse and personal attacks on a daily basis have an affect on people's health and well being? According to another article that I posted at GU on defending against verbal abuse, it can. And I think we all know that and we all know the effect that stress has on the body and certain illnesses.

This is an excerpt from that article.

About the Gentle Art of Verbal Self-Defense (GAVSD)
Hostile language -- often called verbal abuse -- is one of the worst problems people face today. Hostile language is as dangerous to health and well-being as toxic waste, not only because of its own destructive nature but because it so often escalates into physical violence. The Gentle Art of Verbal Self-Defense is a system developed by Suzette for establishing a language environment in which hostile language interactions almost never happen, and in which -- when they truly cannot be avoided -- they are handled efficiently, effectively, and with no loss of face on either side. Physical violence requires the intervention of law enforcement officers, medical professionals, and other outside "experts"; while violence is still verbal, every single one of us can learn to defuse it and handle it with skill. GAVSD is a simple and practical set of methods and techniques designed specifically for that purpose.

Why Verbal Self-Defense is a Skill We Need

It has undoubtedly happened to you. There you are, in the middle of a fierce argument with someone, and suddenly you realize that you not only don't particularly care about the subject of the argument but you can't understand how you got into the altercation in the first place!

This isn't trivial. Hostile language is dangerous to your health and well-being; it's toxic stuff. People who are frequently exposed to hostile language get sick more often, are injured more often, take longer to recover from illness and injury, and suffer more complications during recovery. As an obvious result, they tend to die sooner than those not so exposed. What's more, hostile language is just as dangerous to the person dishing it out (and to innocent bystanders who can't leave the scene) as it is to the person on the receiving end.

Obviously it's to your advantage to stay out of arguments in both your personal and your professional life, unless something truly important -- something about which you care profoundly -- is at stake. Even then, most of us are aware that it's possible to have intense discussions that don't turn into altercations. How is it, then, that intelligent people keep finding themselves involved in arguments almost by accident?

The answer is pretty simple, and it's a relic of the days when humankind dealt with sabertooth tigers at close range on a regular basis. One of the parts of your brain (the amygdala) is on constant duty, and one of its primary tasks is to scan for danger. When it spots an incoming perception that meets its criteria for danger, it has the ability to send a message that provokes an immediate fight-or-flight reaction, and it can do that without first going through the reasoning part of your brain. It can literally short-circuit your thinking process. In the sabertooth tiger days this was a good thing. You saw something vaguely big and furry, and you either left the scene fast or threw your club. You acted first, and then you thought about it, which increased your odds of survival a good deal.

This part of your brain can still be a good thing on those very rare occasions when you do face imminent life-threatening sudden peril from tornadoes or terrorists or mad gun-toters. The problem is that it's just as likely to kick in when the only threat you face is some klutz who wants to argue about whether his computer is more powerful than your computer. If the amygdala thinks the klutz is a threat, it bypasses your reasoning brain -- and shortly you're thinking, "I don't even CARE whether my computer has more memory than this turkey's computer! How the heck did I get INTO this?? And how the heck do I get OUT of it so I can get on with my day??" This can happen to anybody now and then; we all just lose it sometimes. But if it happens often, it's a grave threat to your well-being. It's a lot more dangerous to you than most of the risk factors you spend time and money trying to guard against. You need to know how to put an end to this nonsense.