Hello MARK!
11 Jul 97 18:00, MARK PROBERT wrote to STEVEN GODBE:
 MP> I did not take it personally. How come you are responding and not
 MP> "Dr. Dot".
I'm responding because I choose to, because *I* was offended by your
remarks, because I like Dr. Dot a lot, because I think I know her
well enough to realize she wouldn't bother defending herself to you,
because I regularly read this message base and sometimes post, because
I've been an activist for ADD/ADHD and a participant for years but
still disagree with some of YOUR positions while agreeing with some of
Dr. Dot's and even Peter Breggin's from time to time, because it's my
right and my obligation to speak my mind when it may impact serious
social issues, and because of many more reasons than this but for which
I don't feel a particular need to type to you in an attempt to assuage
your paranoia.
 MP> I have no chip. I do see a red flag when someone recommends Peter
 MP>  Breggin to anyone with ADHD.
You see a red flag on many issues and upon statements from many people,
Mark.
 MP>  He denies its existence, and is
 MP> opposed to the most effective treatment modalities.
Breggin, from what *I* have read of his work, is a defender of patients
from intrusive psychiatric practice which is not necessarily based so
much upon strong science as it is upon institutionalized common practice
and convenience.  He's an outspoken watchdog on the pharmacological
treatment and 'exclusively biological-based treatment' of mental
illnesses.  He's done some very good things, and his main concern with
ADD/ADHD is that he feels it's overdiagnosed, that too frequently
when it is, there's often an over-reliance upon drug treatment to the
exclusion of all others, that often children are over-medicated both
in dose and with poly-pharmacy, and he feels it's a crime that these
medications have been prescribed so heavily to adolescents and children
when there's little research having been done on the effects of long-
term use on the brain, and NO research having been done upon the effects
upon the GROWING brain.
I think there's a lot to think about in what he writes, and there's no
question that the man is a true hero to thousands, and a man respected
widely enough to be called as an expert witness before the US Congress.
Thousands of people owe their higher intellectual function to the man.
Thousands more owe their memory to him.  You discount his work to easily.
 MP> So, when she posted exactly that, I knew one of two things
 MP> regarding her knowledge of ADHD:
 MP>     1. She does not know what Breggin stands for.
 MP>     2. She does know what Breggin stands for.
On the contrary, from what you have written of Breggin, I'd never have
noticed that he's primarily a critic of a single school of mental health
providing, and that his arguments about the ADD/ADHD 'epidemic' were
mostly ideological and professional constructive criticisms.
 MP> If she fits number one, then she is posting in an uninformed
 MP> manner. If she fits number two, then she has an agenda that she
 MP> is not divulging.
 MP> I have been deluged in the past nine years with people who fit 1)
 MP> or 2).
Some people refer to such an over-simplification of people into an
'us vs. them' situation with the self as the 'us' side to be an example
of paranoiac behavior.   Others would call it either intellectual
dishonesty, self-deception, or an ego-defense.  I think it's more
impolite and needlessly confrontational than anything else.
 MP> Now, if you want to impress me, explain to me why you, and not
 MP> "Dr. Dot" is responding. Posting a message and then not sticking
 MP> around to engage in dialogue is trolling.
I feel no need to impress you.  I feel it unlikely to be able to
communicate successfully with you even, given some of the exchanges with
you I've seen over the past while in this echo.  I disagree with you,
and that's enough to make communication with you dicey at best.  BTW,
your assessment of a 'trolling' motivation relies upon the assumption
that someone is 'out to get you', and is not a valid assumption.  It's
just the only one you're prepared to accept.  That means that YOU are
responsible for your own upset, but are seeking to place the blame for
it upon another.  That's another form of intellectual dishonesty at best,
a symptomatic indicator at worst.
 MP> Much of the anti-pharmacotherapy propaganda of the Cult of
 MP> Scientology is deliberately non-specific. They support Breggin.
One cannot judge a thought by selectively taking exception to some of
its adherents.  One imagines that Hitler might have self-identified
himself as a Lutheran, but should the Lutheran church be vilified for
this reason?  More you against the world, Mark?
 MP> Explain what you mean "in harm's way".
I am NOT going to indulge your needs in this and I refuse to speculate
upon what Dr. Dot was thinking on this issue.  I probably should have
refused to be drawn into the discussion as well, but I have this problem
with doing that sometimes.  Doubtless, several decades of mental health
care providing have better prepared Dr. Dot.
 MP> Recommending Breggin in an ADHD conference is the intellectual
 MP> equivalent of the old sales swindle of "Bait and Switch".
I marvel at the degree of arrogance it would take to make such a
statement.
 MP> Specifically explain how it was a good deed. I do not see any.
No, I guess you wouldn't, because you choose not to, not entirely
without precedent.
 MP> You answering for her gives a whole new depth of meaning to
 MP> Shakespeare statements. "There is something rotten in the state
 MP> of Denmark".
I change my mind.  I should have known better than to attempt reason.
I certainly should have known better than to attempt an appeal to
your sense of civility.
Steven
--- GoldED/2 2.42.G0214
(1:106/1393)
---------------