posted December 16, 2006 02:46 AM         

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

Maire31
Knowflake
Posts: 113
From: SOFLA, USA
Registered: Oct 2006
posted December 11, 2006 01:52 AM

I'm writing because I feel the need to add a few points. I'm not here to antagonize or judge anyone's motivations.
In my opinion...
1. Many of the traits listed in the original post are indeed relevant to Narcissistic Personality Disorder albeit somewhat redundant e.g., 9,16 & 23; 19,37,38,30 & 44.
2. The traits, as D for Defiant stated, do not apply to all personality disorders. Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD) is one of four disorders in a subset of personality disorders identified as Cluster B Personality Disorders. There are two other subsets, Cluster A and Cluster C that are clinically separate from each other.
For those interested in perusing the DSM, I'd like to offer my opinions on this as well.
1. Psychiatry/Psychology is part art, part science. It is not a "hard" science like Biology, Chemistry, etc. The DSM was developed as a set of guidelines to assist clinicians/investigators in reliably diagnosing/treating/studying various mental disorders. Despite this, mental health diagnoses remain subjective to a large degree. It is rarely black and white. This being said, no diagnosis should ever be taken lightly. In the DSM's "Cautionary Statement" they clearly state the following: "The proper use of these criteria requires specialized clinical training that provides both a body of knowledge and clinical skills." The DSM is not meant to be used like a cookbook filled with recipes of mental disorders. For example, as a clinician, we're trained to consider and/or investigate variables such as cultural norms, medical conditons, family history, etc. that may be mitigating factors in any diagnostic hypothesis we may be developing. Such factors are not necessarily available within the pages of the DSM.
2. Responsible clinicians have a hard enough time qualifying serious, complicated symptomology in order to arrive at appropriate, accurate diagnoses and often seek feedback from colleagues in order to support or differentiate the more complicated diagnoses, like personality disorders.
3. Personality disorders have a very poor prognosis. You can liken it to a life sentence most of the time. Along with some other psychiatric conditions, personality disorders are highly stigmatized diagnoses to attach to an individual. As with medical diagnoses, anyone not trained in this specific discipline/area should never consider labeling another with any sort of psychiatric diagnosis.
Information is power. We should all strive to use it wisely.

D for Defiant
Knowflake
Posts: 1015
From:
Registered: May 2006
posted December 11, 2006 03:01 AM

I greatly appreciate your further clarification, Maire31. Thank you
Thank you for the additional cautionary and the basic fine points regarding the use of DSM. I apologize for my careless mistake of trying to encourage people to read DSM by speaking of reading the clinical textbook in an overly light-hearted manner, and while doing so, I had completely forgotten that I was missing the critical fact that, DSM is a textbook for those who study and pursue the mental health care, mostly psychiatric medicine, profession(s), and also had forgotten that I was speaking from my own way-too-personal perspective as a learner of psychiatric medicine and a few other related fields but totally overlooked the probability that, for the average person, there should be a warning that, in simple terms, this is not about in which language this specific textbook is written, BUT the very fact that, under most circumstances, it is designed to serve as a reference for those in the profession(s) and certainly, NOT everyone can comprehend what is written in the pages of DSM plus what is NOT written in the pages of the book BUT which should be borne in mind at all times for the users (and besides DSM is definitely NOT the ONLY book the students of the related fields or the professionals are required to read. I am sorry that I sounded too optimistic. In any event, Maire31 is the saving grace here
But still, I could not, and still have much difficulty of, finding another way of trying to settle this by referring to American Psychiatric Association. Again, Maire31, I owe you much gratitude, and thanks again for helping us see more clearly.

Edit note:

P.S. Maire31,
I would like to ask your permission for me to quote your entire post in all my other mutiple post as part of additional editing at the bottom of each of the original posts, if better than as new messages, in light that certain individuals may feel that I'm "promoting" my threads in order to satisfy myself. Your message is essential. However, regretfully, this might not be able to wait any longer and I may quote your post before you could get to see this and get back to me. Anyway, thank you.

2nd additional editing:

I'm sorry, Maire31, but I was thinking the possible negative speculations both quoting you as new posts for my own threads and quoting you as additional editing in my original threads, and I changed my mind, thought quoting you as new posts would be more appropriate.

Maire31
Knowflake
Posts: 113
From: SOFLA, USA
Registered: Oct 2006
posted December 11, 2006 12:16 PM

DforD
Thanks for your understanding and gratitude, I'm glad to know you thought I might have helped. I think I've read all (I may have missed some) of the posts on this topic and in general, as I stated previously, I see a lot of merit in what both you and Mirandee had to say. I also agree with some of what Sue had to say. I really hesitated to send that post. I'm very new here and have already had a row with someone that got not just the two of us out of control, but plenty of others as well. Since then I've laid very low around here, mainly reading posts to absorb things. For all the humor, insight and love around here there are lots of squabbles - I guess that's life, eh?
I'm getting a little off topic now...
I don't know all the ins and outs of etiquette on LL and this is the only forum I've ever frequented so it's kind of hit or miss for me. I do try and use my manners as much as possible, but I'll never be perfect. I don't belong to any cliques around here which is fine, however it does bother me when I see, what I perceive to be, others attacking people under the smoke screen of defending friendship. This of course is NOT the same as someone offering a conflicting opinion about an issue. Indeed everyone is entitled to express their own opinions and rebuttals.
It's one thing to defend yourself against a direct personal attack, insult, etc., but I don't understand how others justify attacking, insulting, or insinuating something about another when nothing was directed at them personally in the first place. I think it's very divisive and serves only to fuel hostility. Online communication is highly precarious even in the best of circumstances, seems we all tend to lose sight of that at times.
I, as much as anyone else, enjoy a good argument but I prefer to fight my own battles. Unless asked, I choose not to speak for others. So for the record, if any of you see me arguing with anyone around here in the future please don't attack them or me (unless I attack you first, God forbid). Whenever I argue my intention is NOT to create factions amongst others. I'm simply arguing with someone about something that is personal to me alone.
Thanks for letting me get that off my chest. I promise you this is not directed at anyone imparticular. They are simply my feelings on a collection of thoughts/impressions I've had over the last several weeks. If anyone does take offense to this I would ask you consider why you feel offended by me if I have not directed anything at you personally. My communications are bold enough that if I have a problem with you, I wouldn't hesitate to confront you (directly) on it. This is exactly how I got into that "row" I spoke of earlier in this post.
I am not asking anyone to change their behavior in general, just as it relates to me. I'm an Aries Sun/Merc...I don't hold grudges, I am quite forgiving (to myself and others) after that conflagration dies off.
I'm willing to take the risk of putting this out there in the hopes that some of you may begin to know me a little better. I hope it doesn't backfire, but if it does, I'll have to deal with it. I'm a brave little Aries. http://www.linda-goodman.com/ubb/Forum10/HTML/002540.html

mysticaldream
Knowflake
Posts: 715
From:
Registered: Jan 2006
posted December 09, 2006 09:13 AM

As for you Gemini Nymph, whoever the hell you are, back off of Sue. She is one person on here who is consistently nice, kind and compassionate and tries to be objective. http://www.linda-goodman.com/ubb/Forum10/HTML/002540-3.html

Lialei
Knowflake
Posts: 1176
From:
Registered: Jul 2005
posted December 10, 2006 11:29 AM

Peace and compassion???
How about distortion of the truth to suit personal agendas?
Mirandee never said things like you're saying she did and you're using any opportunity you can find to twist her words, to publicly humiliate her character, because you dislike her.
Cut the phony compassion crap.
If you had any compassion or true empathy you wouldn't be sitting in such stern self-righteous judgement of someone when they are at such a fragile time of sadness over the illness of a dear friend.
Thank you, Zala, for your brave and beautiful, big heart that tries to understand and remains open to believe.

sue g
Knowflake
Posts: 7408
From: former land of the leprechaun
Registered: Sep 2004
posted December 10, 2006 11:57 AM

Arent you a relative of Mirandee?

I understand your loyalty....its very touching....
But I am not phony, just honest like you and Mirandee always insisted on.....wasnt the phrase you used "brutal honesty"
And why are you so angry Lia, I am, as you are, entitled to my own opinion..
And "cut the crap" doesnt really sit well with your usual poetic nature...no need to come down to this level girl.

pidaua
Knowflake
Posts: 6331
From: Arizona - Moving to Germany to be with Bear the Leo
Registered: May 2002
posted December 11, 2006 02:36 PM

Sue,
Lia is a relative of Mirandee- she is her daughter.
Mirandee
Knowflake
Posts: 1965
From: South of the Thumb Taurus, Pisces, Cancer
Registered: Sep 2004
posted December 04, 2006 11:54 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Honestly I do understand your defense of your wife. I admire that and would expect no less of you. It is the same as my daughter defense of me. I actually wish Lia hadn't done that because now she is taking the heat too and she does not deserve that at all.

************ I was just answering question and not putting anyone down. http://www.linda-goodman.com/ubb/Forum16/HTML/002991.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?

pidaua
Knowflake
Posts: 6331
From: Arizona - Moving to Germany to be with Bear the Leo
Registered: May 2002
posted December 11, 2006 02:57 PM

Lotus, I would agree about most with the exception of one major thing - Kindred Spirits. I realize SOME used it in the wrong way, but others just enjoyed another online meeting place. There were several KS's that I still consider friends and I look up to them- I just realize they may not have known what other's had done.
I think the bittersweetness comes from some of the statements, vile statements, made about knowflakes and then when brought to everyone's attention here, several people actually defended the right for people to make those comments.

YET... it does nothing to bring in the negativity. I can't blame anyone here that has said something nasty or mean to me, if I became sick. My words were terrible and I meant the apology and I still think of Rainbow and her pain. I understood the anger in Mirandee because of her loss and sadness that is so incredibly strong when you have a sick or dying friend. It is only when the same thing keeps coming up and I am made to be causitive agent for something so horrendous.
I am tired of the veiled threats, the whole 'I can find out where you live... or others will' and what? Attack me? Cause me physical or emotional pain? For what? Me saying something incredibly stupid yet it was currently taking place?
If I was a narcissist I never would have apologized and posted in a thread where I knew I would get heat from some people. I never would have sat back while others took punches at me, blaming me for these things and yet still I refused to call names or say anything evil. I feel horrible about a fellow knowflake regardless of how we interacted. And I say "WE" because WE were both pretty damn mean to each other.
I pray that we can all move on and stop laying blame on anothers doorstep to mask our anger and hurt.

Let's pray and send light for the medications to work, for her strength to continue and for her full rehabilitation.

Maire31
Knowflake
Posts: 113
From: SOFLA, USA
Registered: Oct 2006
posted December 11, 2006 03:52 PM

Regarding the subject of labeling...
Each and every one of us have a multitude of labels bestowed upon us. From the moment we are born, we are labeled.
In my opinion...
Labels, in their truest sense are necessary to define things. How else would we communicate information if not for labels?
For example, this entire forum is predicated on labels from our screenames to our astrological aspects. I think the problem with labels arises when the plasticity of the human spirit is compromised by using a label to exclusively define a person. It seems to me the world has become so much more literal (P.C. if you will) with the globalization of communications. Perhaps a necessary evil. I often find myself hesitating to "label" anything exclusively but that does not prevent me from labeling (or identifying) a set of criteria so that I may more effectively communicate concepts.
Most often people tend to use labels as a form of shorthand. Is there an easier way to convey a set of conditions someone is experiencing other than using a label? What I'm trying to illustrate here is it's not easy nor necessarily effective to identify every criterion of a situation to avoid using a label. My son's head hurts, he says his nose feels all stuffed up, he complains his throat feels itchy, his eyes appear glassy, his voice sounds gruff, he tells me he feels very tired. So hmmm, what might be going on with this kid? If I don't use the appropriate medical label none of you would definitively know what is happening to him. He has a cat allergy. That seems innocuous enough.
Problem is when people DEFINE people by a label...saying 'Jane Doe is a Narcissist' is irresponsible. She's completely self-absorbed, she has difficulty accepting and adhering to social rules, she is not always truthful, she's constantly in the mirror admiring herself, she always thinks she's right, she's preoccupied with her own needs and desires often at the expense of those she supposedly cares about, she shirks her responsibilities and is not remorseful about it. Some might say wow, classic Narcissistic Personality Disorder. WRONG! Jane Doe is merely a teen experiencing narcissistic behaviors that often exist during "adolescence". Without labeling the BEHAVIORS as narcissistic (NOT her ESSENCE) how else could we define Jane's behaviors accurately?
I will admit I'm sensitive to negative generalizations of the medical arts because I work very hard to be sensitive with those I work with. I know all too well there are many, many irresponsible practitioners out there that give their professions a bad rap (just like like attorneys, etc, can as well)but those sort of generalizations aren't fair to apply globally. Funny, it's that whole labeling thing again. I just wanted to illustrate the good and bad of labeling. I certainly see both sides of the argument. A blessing and a curse http://www.linda-goodman.com/ubb/Forum10/HTML/002540-4.html

D for Defiant
Knowflake
Posts: 1015
From:
Registered: May 2006
posted December 12, 2006 02:10 AM

Zala, Maire31
Regarding the use of the language to speak of and to describe madness, I highly recommend that you read Kay Redfield Jamison's memoir "An Unquiet Mind"- the chapter under the Part entitled "An Unquiet Mind", and the section is entitled "Speaking of Madness", as far as I can remember.

(Supplementary comments: After recommending Kay Redfield Jamison's books to others for a long time, I recenly realized that she should not, and her work should not, in my humble opinion, be recommended- at least not by me. Therefore, I would not omit the above recommendation, but instead, informing you that I have a change of thought)

There are usually two sides of everything, and there are always those fine lines, those fine points which are often very subtle that the majority of people would either miss or take them the way that is lacking in balance. For any of us, who's dedicating their life and work to any of their specific field, it is quite likely for them to see merely the surface of those other fields which do not belong to them.
For example, just because some other people I know and I have consistently participated in the courses, conferences and other events conducted by TCDP (Taiwan Center for the Development of Psychoanalysis), and certain of these individuals are the members or executives of TCDP, THAT does NOT, mean, at least here in Taiwan, that we are all blindly, rigidly and mechanically "loyal" followers/disciples of Sigmund Freud and inflexibly agree on whatever he said, or with the ideologies from other psychoanalysts, either. Why not? Because of the fine lines and fine points I have mentioned earlier on. There are only too many reasons why people, most of whom psychiatrists, end up in the psychoanalytic fields. Too many. Are all of them happy about that? NO. Do all of us hold exactly identical beliefs and theories? A firm NO. So do we all have exactly the same methods when it comes to our duty (well, in my case my duty is to study hard, observe keenly, maintain and enhance an open mind and make progress) to do our job? People may shrug off the psychoanalytic theories and assume all of us who are involved in the studies of it are "identical". Truth is of course we're not. Just like some of us may make our own presumptions of lawyers and think that none of them have ideals etc...but speaking as a layperson, I dare say that it's not true.
Now, back to the agenda of "labels and labelling"- I try very hard to improve our mutual understanding here. Do psychiatrists, and those of us who are involved in the studying of psychiatric medicine, volunteer to label excessively, abruptly, or encourage doing so? That is not true- in our circle of psychiatric residents and acquaintances who are not physicians, clinicians but share similar interests, pursuits and studies choices (for instance, I'm not a clinician...yet)- again, in our circle, as I pointed out in another post in response to this multiple post started by Mirandee, I said that as psychiatrists themselves, which means I obtain this because I happen to be within the circle from time to time (ongoing), they constantly talk about NOT labelling anybody with their relatively preliminary knowledge and experience of the field; they would do their best NOT to casually label people they know in their personal lives- friends, family members etc- that you have this or you have that, or you are this or you are that, merely because they've gone to medical school, they've studied psychiatry ( but have not "finished"! It's an ongoing, lifetime process!), or they are now doctors, psychiatrists (well, residents though Pun intended ). On the contrary. They frequently remind their close colleagues and themselves of NOT to label any individual casually, untimely, unnecessarily, or excessively.
As psychiatrists, some of them with better awareness, would remind their patients NOT to overidentify with their own diagnoses- and this has been taking place all the time; those who have maintained more consideration would gently urge certain mental patients, who are sensitive about their own illness, to NOT overidentify themselves with their conditions- because, I suppose in simple terms, if you have poor insight about your own condition, surely the outcome of your remission or recovery would not be helped by this. However, if you overidentify with your diagnosis, it is simply the other form of out-of-the-balance, AND that IS one of the things they as clinicians do try their utmost NOT to let it happen. We do encourage patients NOT to overidentify themselves, because none of us can achieve the balance we need by doing so, and in the end this is not helping anyone or any situation.
We as free individuals are all entitled to our opinion, stance, and position, and I would do everything I can to try to respect other people's views as I should; nonetheless, those fine lines, fine points, the tangling in the web...most of the time cannot be condensed down to a term, a post, or a book- we all have our own missions in this lifetime, we all contribute to society and humanity in each of our own idiosyncratic way, and all we can do is the best we can

D for Defiant
Knowflake
Posts: 1015
From:
Registered: May 2006
posted December 14, 2006 05:50 AM

btw, Maire31
Thanks for the encouragement. I really appreciate it
*multiple-post yet again*
Right...should I be saying something like "so glad to see so many of us 'care'"?
Please, just drop it. Take Sue's words as pearls of wisdom this time round- not even those with their titles as "M.D.", let alone the rest of us- it is none of our business to lose patience and compassion as to jump to conclusions and using those "disorders" labels dangerously- it was with much reluctance that I gave contact info of American Psychiatry Association- for one thing, this may have been a more or less stimulating conversation, BUT this is NOT a website dedicating to the medical profession/theocracy people to discuss their biz, this site, albeit with our liberty to have a variety of themes or topics for us to participate in discussions, nevertheless, LL is for us to honor the spirit of Linda, and please, dear fellow knowflakes- I'm sure you all know how Linda was vehemently against things like organized religion, and as well as "medical theocracy"- so please, I really never think of this site as the right place to debate subjects like this one in-depth.
I tried to take this to a halt but I was all thumbs. Maire31 's fine quote:

quote-
Information is power. We should thrive to use it wisely.

(DforD: )Therefore, please handle your knowledge or information with much care, the way you present it may make us all fragile and vulnerable to unwanted consequences- please do NOT use the info you possess to label any individual with a "personality disorder diagnosis"- that's lethal. Even throughout the process for those clinicians to actually make diagnoses, they'd have to note many other complicated additional factors and take them all into consideration: one person's sounding "familiar" as to being "like" a certain "personality disorder" often does NOT meet the complete diagnostic criteria, and would subsuquently be noted as "with ***** traits..."; often, a real diagnosis has not been made, but instead, physicians may note that "with provisional diagnosis of ***" or "with (likely, but not 100% sure) past diagnosis of ***" and lots of medical bureaucratic language like that.
Please, all I'm trying to say is I applaud for your enthusiasm, but this is really not the place to discuss such a topic, and should you be so keen, please do this somewhere else, if you are really interested in those "medical terms". I, along with some other people, may have chosen, for now, to be on the side of the conventional medical theocracy for our own reasons (which not all of them are so merry)- but like I said, I'd really like to see us drop this, this is LindaLand. As Sue so wisely put (paraphrasing), none of us, none of us here and those of us who have chosen to stay here at LL, have the qualification to give any other of our fellow knowflakes, or say, human beings- ANY diagnosis. If you truly feel inclined to do so, please go somewhere else where such action is encouraged and where it might be their central theme. Peace. http://www.linda-goodman.com/ubb/Forum10/HTML/002540-5.html

D for Defiant
Knowflake
Posts: 1015
From:
Registered: May 2006
posted December 15, 2006 07:37 AM

The medical profession is neither a saint nor Satan. It cannot be entirely dismissed or idealized.
We do share each other's experiences at LL a lot, about many different aspects of life, including feeling low, or being unwell in general.
But that is one thing, and attempting to bring up a very complex subject, as in this case, personality disorders- some of the most complicated and the most difficult illnesses for psychiatrists to make a diagnosis and to treat- and the topic starter is evidently NOT a practicing psychiatrist, and a non-physician-
That is another entirely different thing.
Therefore, I would not support such threads by further exacerbating what's already been quite awful- we may, however, share- like Swerve did but we could just start another thread, just for sharing, but NOT to intend to discuss such serious matters as if one is a professional when one is NOT.
And if anyone is not happy about orthodox pharmaceutical companies and the medicines they manufacture- please start another thread of your own and let others share their experiences and have their say, instead of somewhat drifting away from the subject, but to start another debate on a topic that appears to be related to this one here, but only to be supporting this thread.
As long as one of us has started another thread intending to share rather than to "educate" others, while they are NOT psychiatrists themselves- I will do my bit to boycott such threads by not replying to those- unless there are people who continue to play with medical diagnosis. Peace.

D for Defiant
Knowflake
Posts: 1015
From:
Registered: May 2006
posted December 15, 2006 08:11 AM

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 complicated, even controversial matter, involvement 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 hostfamilies, they functioned well, so to speak- they got along with one another and I was pleased to have known them and hung 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 on that statement.

Mirandee
Knowflake
Posts: 1987
From: South of the Thumb Taurus, Pisces, Cancer
Registered: Sep 2004
posted December 15, 2006 10:35 AM
quote:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.
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.

quote:

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

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.

Answers from D for Defiant:

Mirandee, I think I owe you many thanks upon several aspects-

Thank you for reminding me of, and suggest that I mention Pidaua and her husband. I was not 100 percent sure your honorable claims of informing the public and being helpful regarding severe mental disorders such as personality disorders, has anything whatsoever to do with Pidaua, until now. Thank you for letting me know better- so this does have to do with Pidaua? I sincerely appreiciate the timely reminder.

Thank you, too, to point out to me that there are two types of mother-daughter relationships, according to you, Mirandee- the healthy type and the unhealthy type. I did not know, but until now, that there are these two types of mother-daughter relationships, which can be defined simply as healthy and unhealthy, just like black and white- and we still haven’t been provided a verification as to who is the one here to judge what is healthy and what is not healthy; furthermore, even in a not-totally-harmonious mother daughter relationship, it still depends on the individuals concerned here, whether the daughter would go to the extent of blaming her mother for what the latter has never done. The daughter may not be close to her own mother, or may have disagreements with the latter, but it is the daughter’s decision whether she wants to accuse her mother of something the latter has never done, or not to do so but remain distant or unfriendly toward her own mother; for a daughter to not like her mother is one thing, whether the daughter would deliberately distort any fact about her own mother is another.

Likewise, even in a loving mother-daughter relationship, the daughter is perfectly entitled to her own belief system and her own actions- notwithstanding her love toward her mother, it is up to the daughter whether to stand by her mother at all times, or to express her disagreements with her own mother should the daughter chooses to do so. Therefore, I would not perceive these matters as black and white and rigid guidelines.

And thank you, too, Mirandee, for caring deeply about the truth. Thank you for inspiring me to think about whose truth we as people at LindaLand have been paying so much attention to and showing concerns for.

Thank you for reminding me of pondering more on what we call the truth, whose truth we are talking about, who categorize what is the truth and what is not here, and what the truth really is. http://www.linda-goodman.com/ubb/Forum10/HTML/002540.html

Azalaksh
Knowflake
Posts: 3463
From: New Brighton, MN, USA
Registered: Nov 2004
posted December 09, 2006 02:30 PM

"He that is without sin among you, let him cast the first stone....." http://www.linda-goodman.com/ubb/Forum10/HTML/002540.html

mysticaldream
Knowflake
Posts: 715
From:
Registered: Jan 2006
posted December 09, 2006 09:13 AM

Come on now, everyone KNOWS the reasons behind this posting. Mirandee is upset (as everyone is) over Rainbow's brain tumor. She is still very angry with Pidaua because of passed angry exchanges between Pid. and Rainbow.
She doesn't want to let it go and it trying to prove by inference that Pidaua has a psychological disorder. She is listing a set of "symptoms" she thinks fits her "condition"; therefore proving Pidaua is mentally unwell.
There are more than a couple of problems with this.
First of all, she (Pidaua) did not know Rainbow was going to face such a horrible health crisis when they were disagreeing anymore than you (Mirandee) know what lies in Pidauas future.
Second of all, your material has not convinced anyone Pidaua has a mental condition.......maybe "foot in mouth" disease from time to time; I do think, however, there is a playfulness to her sarcasm that some people take way too seriously. Obviously. Also, if she did have a psychological condition (which she obviously doesn't), would it somehow be ACCEPTABLE to mock and harrass someone for something they cannot control?
I think this all has pitiful little to do with Rainbow; I think she is being used as an excuse to be hateful and vengeful and that is the WORST crime in all of this.

Comments from D for Defiant: I apologize for my manner, however, I have been trying to refine my manner. I apologize once again for making people feel uncomfortable.
Mirandee, I truly admire your determination for your own beliefs, there is a great deal of extraordinary strength in such determination. Thank you for your statements of so enthusiastically and altruistically informing the rest of us. And I am also absolutely impressed with your knowledge- I seriously consider whether it would be a good idea to encourage you to contact American Psychiatric Association, for all your abilities we have witnessed here, perhaps you would be very competent working for American Psychiatry Association- however, you are perfectly entitled to your decision. Nevertheless, I am deeply touched by your spirit and your intelligence. With all due respect, I am going to quietly boycott all your threads, and those of your beloved daughter, Lialei, from now on- once again, thank you, Mirandee, for having contributed enormously to my information gathering and provided such food for thought.

I shall not participate in any of Mirandee’s, or Lialei’s threads from this moment on, because I cannot tolerate such honor as unknowingly becoming an associate of either of these two mother and daughter. Unless any individual at LL continues to seek quarrels upon such issues as psychiatric diagnosis, the psychiatric medical profession, and, or any related topics in attempts to not share but to argue for- I shall quietly decline to participate in any thread authored by Mirandee, or Lialei.

D for Defiant