Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:38, 18 January 2007

Welcome!

Hello, Scuro, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Regards, Accurizer 00:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

antipsych is NOT scientology

I see you have been editing psychiatry-related, controversial articles. I wonder if you know that the views of secular critics of psychichiatry are VERY DIFFERENT to the views of religious or fringe groups. Our Weltanschauung is wholly different.

I will give you a couple of examples. Scientologists maintain that World War II, the Bosnia war and even September 11 were caused by psychiatrists; and that evil psychiatrists caused the universe’s mess trillions of years ago (see e.g., Space opera in Scientology doctrine). NOBODY I know in the psychiatric survivor movement, or in the critical literature by professionals that I have read, hold such views.

Please read the Antipsychiatry article and compare it with the Scientology and psychiatry and Psychiatry: An Industry of Death to see the big difference! 189.140.202.203 17:00, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

The two groups do have different beliefs, but do they not share the same roots and hold very similar beliefs about mental disorders? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scuro (talk • contribs)

Hi Scuro: You posted a message in the wrong place, my main user page. I just moved it to the right one.

As to your questions, the roots are different. Classic antipsychiatrists like David Cooper and Ronald Laing had ties with the political left of the 1960s. Scientology on the other hand started as a mix of Aleister Crowley’s magic, Freud’s abreaction therapy and science-fiction fantasies.

The beliefs are also different. Scientologists are religiously committed to never take psychiatric drugs. Not even the most radical and prolific critic of psychiatry, Thomas Szasz, holds such commitment. Szasz even published a book about the right of adults to take illegal drugs. Personally, though I’m active in debunking involuntary psychiatry, once in a while I take Valium to get some sleep. A scientologist would never do that on principle.

Another major difference is the total rejection of psychology by scientologists. No antipsychiatry activist I know reaches that extreme! I could go on and on to mention more differences. But the above gives you the picture.

I see you are a newcomer to Misplaced Pages. Have fun!  :) 189.140.202.203 23:48, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I moved your post here so that you may respond to my posts here.

So I guess if I post here you can read it. Can others read it also? What if someone else sends me a message. Does it all stay on this page?

Thanks for that information by the way, there should be a Wiki article on the difference between Scientology and Antipsychiatry. It gets confusing. Szasz helped found the CCHR, did he not? I'm assuming he was a scientologist, has he broken from Scientology now?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Scuro (talk • contribs)

Wikipedians discuss issues in their talk pages; some of them prefer to do it in a single talk page in order not to break the arguments in twain. If you continue to edit in WP you may receive here messages from other editors on other topics.

Szasz never was a scientologist, as you can read in the WP article and here. He is only a nominal “founder” of CCHR. In real life Szasz has never had any power whatsoever in an organization ruled by faithful scientologists. In fact, many of Szasz’ views are pretty heretical (e.g., “our right to drugs”) and even evil for the church’s dogmas (e.g., his belief that there is no post-mortem survival for the human psyche). But he has not broken with CCHR and probably never will.

Strange bedfellows… 189.140.202.203 01:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

they eat at the same table

When you talk of the ICSPP, Szasz, Scientology, Breggin, Baughman, Mindfreedom et al,...really you can say they are all different, and they are. Szasz denies he ever was a scientologist while Baughman works for them. Breggin may have been but not since the 70's. ICSPP is not linked with Scientology yet the CCHR is. One thing for certain, the message is basically the same when it comes to Psychology or Psychiatry. One may be more extreme but they all speak with the same voice. More interestingly, one creates content for the other, and the other broadcast it. It doesn't matter if the broadcaster or the content creator are affiliated to scientology or not. They share. They work together. They go to protests together. They show up at the same awards nights and fight the same battles. DO SSRI's make people commit suicide? You know which side the antipsychs and scientology are always going to be on...and that is the same side.

--Scuro 05:48, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Breggin

Hi Scuro. I sense (and share) you frustration with Ombudsman's unilateral editing style on the Peter Breggin article. Unfortunately Ombudsman has a history in tendacious editing on subjects critical to medicine and psychiatry. See Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Cesar Tort and Ombudsman vs others. I urge you to continue to edit in a collaborative manner and do not resort to edit warring, instead leave me to deal with him. He is on an indefinate probations and "may be banned by any administrator for good cause from any article concerning a medical subject which he disrupts by tendentious editing". He is well on his way towards that. and if he continues along these lines I will invoke that ruling.

In the meantime, would you mind considering reworking the new section on Columbine. As it is, I don't really understand the direct relevence to Breggin. The "infamous Colombine trial" is not sufficient to inform a non expert in the subject as to what you are talking about. The quote from the judge appear to me to be completely unrelated to Breggin. We also have to be careful of due balance in a WP:BLP, as the article is growing to the extent that the majority of it is examples of criticism of his credibility. While its important that these issues are mentioned, its also imperative that we don't pile on by listing every example of criticism. Thanks Rockpocket 21:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I have been a little frustrated by his editing. But I guess that is to be expected. When one takes the time to carefully word and edit something and then someone changes it so that it's meaning has been significantly altered, frustration sets in. So at that point I thought it was important to let history and the courts show us who Breggin is. How can one edit that? In court he has failed both the Frye and Daubert standard which are scientific standards.

The Columbine case was remarkable because it looks like Breggin hadn't even made an effort to look at any of the evidence. The killers had made videos and there was all sorts of other evidence yet Breggin simply made his report ignoring this evidence. Is that important to know? I think it is when Breggin is cited as an expert witness. How should I handle that Colombine section?

--Scuro 23:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, I agree the criticism of his credibility is notable, its just that we should be concise and to the point; long quotes from judges or scene setting isn't really directly relevent to the simple fact that his testimony failed legal standards. Whats more, the more simple and to the point you can make it, the more difficult it becomes for supporters to justify removing it. So, something along the lines of "In the a case relating to the Columbine High School massacre (it would be better of you could be more specific about what the case was about, I don't know which case it actually was), Breggin's evidence was criticized by the judge for failing the Frye Standard. (ref) appropriate links provides the reader with the context they need to understand the details without us expanding on them here. Rockpocket 09:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

QW

Thanks for your contribution over at QW. Any new eyes looking over the discussion are appriciated. Shot info 08:50, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

You have put a lot of work into that. Sometimes it's nice when others see and recognize your efforts. The other guy is way off base. --Scuro 17:09, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, it would seem that my discussions have fallen on deaf ears over in QW there as the proponents of "Cannot change" have reverted my changes. Unfortunately I will be off the air for a couple of weeks due to some issues out in the real world (tm). If you could take the time to comment over there, I know other editors would appriciate the fresh eyes. Thanks Shot info 05:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)