Glaucoma Drops
Glaucoma Disease » Glaucoma Drops » I am a Doctor but I don't play one on the internet

I am a Doctor but I don't play one on the internet

Question:

Hello,      I think that your response demonstrates the point that William Chambers was trying to make.  He sends a post expressing his opinion and you tell him that he was wrong for doing so.  I agree with you that there is good advice to be found on this newsgroup.  When I first started taking eye drops I just couldn’t seem to get them in my eye.   I posted a message to the group and before long I had a dozen extremely helpful suggestions.  If it weren’t for the advice of these kind people my medication would probably still be running down my cheeks.     However, I also understand what Mr. Chambers was talking about.  I didn’t come to this newsgroup looking for someone to feel sorry for me, but I did come to find others who were suffering from glaucoma.  At 23 I know no one who has glaucoma, so I had no where to turn to learn what to expect, or if the things I am going through are normal.  It’s one thing to read literature on glaucoma (probably written by someone who doesn’t have the disease), but it’s a completely different thing to talk to someone who is actually living with glaucoma.  What I found was a lot of talk about how to reverse visual damage and which surgeries are best, along with a lot of bickering.   Don’t take me the wrong way, I think this information is informative and important (wouldn’t we all like to hear there is a way to reverse visual damage?), but I’d like to see more on the experience of glaucoma.  I also think that Mr. Chambers is right when he says that people are afraid to post on the newsgroup.  Most of the responses I received about instilling the eye drops were via e-mail, and I rarely see any of the people who responded posting on the newsgroup.  I myself have been afraid to post.  I posted a message about the side effects I was having with Timoptic and I received an e-mail from a person stating that they had been using Timoptic for years and had never had a problem with it.  Furthermore they’d never heard of anyone with the problems I was experiencing and therefore I had to be crazy.  Is this what passes for support around here? Alex – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -paul risman wrote: > Bill, > I am sorry to hear that you have constant eye pains, > and I hope that you find some medical treatment for your problems; but to > think that you would actually > have the nerve and audacity to post such a horrendously ignorant message on > a medical > newsgroup is unbelievable. I am a glaucoma sufferer, > quite young at 32, who was diagnosed with glaucoma > about 4 years ago. Was I sad??..you better believe it..I cried for a week > when I got diagnosed. Worried???? How in the world could I not be??? > I have a disease that will result in blindness..no question about it..unless > I take my medication, or have surgery.  Would you want to take the chance > of someone operating on your eys????? Pretty scary. > How about the medication??? Eye Drops. Sounds pretty tame until you realize > that these drops are not visine we’re talking about. Glaucoma medications > are notorious for the side effect that they cause. > Even on a weak dosage of a supposedly low side effect medication, I was so > sick I couldn’t function. > I completely stopped taking all my medication for about a year, knowing that > I couldn’t be doing myself any justice at all….yet I didn’t know what to > do… > I happened to see this newsgroup just about the same > time that i was getting really worried. I posted a small note asking for > suggestions. Luckily for me, about a dozen people wrote me back with > suggestions about > brand new drugs that have just been approved. > Based on the advice these people gave me, I went > straight to my opthamologist to ask him if these > suggestions would be effective for me. Sure enough, > I am now on a new medication which controls my > glaucoma and has virtually no side effects. > Luckily for me, the responses I received weren’t > "Oh poor you…You’ll be blind soon..how terrible… > you better start crying…..and feeling terrible for yourself"" > nonscence…. > I am grateful for the advise that people were willing to take the time out > to provide..their help might just save my eyesight for me. > To answer your question, your symptoms are quite different than anything I > have experienced. I have no pain or light flashes..I am not a doctor so i’m > not sure > if your sysmptoms are glaucoma related or not. > Next time, think before you speak, as the saying goes. > Danny Shyan.

Response:

Patti, What do you think about a survey of glaucoma patients symptoms? Bill This article was posted from <A HREF="http://www.slurp.net/">Slurp Net</A>.

Response:

Ray and Dr. Ritch, Thanks for the response.  Let me know how I can be of help.  You are kind to respond in this way to my pain and frustration.   Thanks, Bill This article was posted from <A HREF="http://www.slurp.net/">Slurp Net</A>.

Response:

On 18 Dec 97 15:05:32 GMT, "William Chambers" <willi…@roman.net> wrote: >Psychology could provide a map of the experience of glaucoma.  We could use >many of the methods from psychophysics (psychometrics) to chart the >patient’s experience of glaucoma and of the social, personal and even >spiritual predicaments that arise with it. Patients with certain symptoms, >in certain situations, making certain assumptions, with certain doctors, >are likely to have certain problems that are ameliorated by certain >strategies.  

That’s for. . .sure. >The lack of certainty is one of the things that causes the >anxiety that some patients experience and that some doctors exploit.

Irrationality of physicians, from the standpoint of the eye-owner, is most of the problem, but the goal remains that of doing something about the function of the eye(s), not any anxiety resultant of this problem. >Not >everyone is so tough as Raymond. Some people are left uneasy by odd visual >sensations. They, unlike Raymond, try to dismiss themselves as crazy, when >in fact there is a clear cut explanation for their experiences.

So you try to find a plausible *physical/psychophysical* explanation that may relate to some physical treatment, not pursue the worship of emotion. >This >includes the experience of anxiety.  

Anxiety, of course, is a subjective concept, observable only through empathy.  Objectively, of course, one can relate neurochemistry to bodily behavior that one empathically associates with anxiety. >I a sense, physical shock is the >ultimate in biological anxiety. Shock can kill people.  Anxiety and >depression kill people too.  

So can excessive verbosity. >I heard the other day that depression is >expected to be third largest killer in the world in the coming years.

That’s very depressing, but you heard that from a psychologist or psychiatrist, right?  They’re always saying something like 90% of the world’s populace is crazy . . .but not *me*. >Aside >from depressions caused by existing visual disabilities and medications, >the prospect of finishing one’s days in darkness, under the care of people >like Raymond, makes the depression as serious threat to most glaucoma >patients. Well maybe its time to appreciate the importance of the mind and >the heart in gluacoma… if not for the progress of the glaucoma, then for >the general health of the patient.

So, if you’re gonna permit a free and open Internet, there’s no way you can keep from getting these types, I suppose.  Under whose care is he, I wonder? >We could collect many descriptions of visual, emotional and social problems >encountered by people with glaucoma. We could put these into a survey and >have patients rate them as they apply to themselves.  We could then use a >mathematical technique called factor analysis to unfold the most implicit >experiential syndromes.  

Right — all you have to do is stick in some math and it becomes science, right? >We could also use this data to model the causes of >the phenomena described by glaucoma sufferers.  

One doesn’t get to objective causes by way of "experiential syndromes"; it takes a heck of a lot of plugging objective observation.  Glaucoma is not a state of mind. >With further psychometric >refinements, we could develop an inventory that places the individual on a >kind of map of the glaucoma experience.  This would help both the patient >and doctor understand where in the course and adaptation to glaucoma they >patient is.  It would force doctors to listen to their patients.  It would >allow us to measure the impact of different drugs, different attitudes, >differrent diets and different doctors right at the front line of >glaucoma… in the patient’s experience.  This of course would not be a >replacement for all those expensive gadgets that the doctor uses. Pressures >still need to be monitored.  But maybe the patient can learn to recognize >the signs of pressure, the signs of vitamin deficiency, the signs of >iatrogenic illnesses.

The "signs"/symptoms of adverse iatrogenic conditions are often quite recognizable without any learning, but you don’t see many of them getting corrected. >Maybe the patients pain is not just the weakness of a >neurotic.  

Quite likely. >Maybe psychology can teach the mighty doctor something about the >patient.  

No way!  They only way you can teach a doctor about fire or anything else is to stick his hand into it.  Otherwise, he just wallows in words over it. >This sort of thing is commonly done by psychologists.  I helped some folks >who studied the abuse in cults create such an inventory recently.  They now >have a scientific tool for screening their patients who might have been >involved in cultic groups.  Before this measure, it was mostly a lot of >more or less informed name calling….kinda like what brother Raymond and I >do when we puff out our feathers.  But what good does such subjective and >self-righteous crowing do?  Better that we develop objective instruments >that map out the experience of glaucoma for all to plainly see.

But you aren’t talking about "*objective instruments*"; you’re talking about *sub*jective mucking around.  Exactly *what* "scientific tool" / "objective instrument" are you claiming you gave the people to whom you refer? And, anyhow, psychology itself has always appeared as a rather loosely assembled cult, composed of all kinds of more tightly knotted little subcults. >W. Chambers, PhD  (I am now speaking as a doctor of psychology)

I’da never guessed. Ray

Response:

Bill, I’ve been reading you’re posts and Ray’s in this newgroup for awhile. I wish both of you would just grow up and stop the personal attacks. I getting tired of reading uless diatribes instead of real information.  Thanks,  Patti On 20 Dec 97 21:15:08 GMT, "William Chambers" <willi…@roman.net> wrote: – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->Dear Raymond, >Now Raymond,  you got a little hot in your responses to me. It happened >before. And you appear to have been laughing at how clever you think you >are.  Has some psychologist told you something about yourself along the >way? Did it bother you?  How have you come to be such an expert on >psychology?  Has some one in your family or career or medical history >suggested that you are an ignorant and offensive little man, puffing out >your chest in search of the public recognition you obviously crave?  Tell >us about all these mountains you have climbed.  Ever climb in the >Himalayas?  I have.  Ever hunt the Everglades for days while alone, with >nothing but a bow and arrow, I have?  Ever wander around Afganistan or Iran >or India alone, I have? Ever conducted and published rigorous scientific >research on topics that no one else has had the courage to consider, I >have. And along the way I met people like you asking for the nearest bar.   >Every scientific observation is based on a construction. Our minds create >an interpretation of phenomena.  We use numbers to convert these >constructions into a format that allows for greater precision in >experimentation.  There is no tabula rasa. the mind is involved at every >step along the way.   The orderliness of these constructed observations >allows us to develop theories and interventions.  No one has ever seen >electricity, only the consequences of it.  Similarly, no one has seen the >mind directly, only the consequences and expressions of mind.   >You have me mixed up with someone else in your mind.  I do not recommend >people pursue secondary gains from illnesses but I do pity people who >suffer. I don’t recall any participation in the SF conferences you >mentioned. What was said that made you so angry? Have you read any of >Sidney Jourard’s psychological work?  He was one of the first people to >bring about changes in bedside manners of the little nerds who poke and >prode others indiffently in the name of medicine and their bank accounts. >It is a big world, little man. Ever read books?  How about books by people >like Tolstoy or Dostoevsky?  Is there any dignity for men of heart and >soul?  Are we all just fools? Is that so bad? Will you whimper if you end >up sitting in a corner alone when your other eye goes?  Will you drink >yourself back into courage, if you can find enough wine? >Psychology is important because no man is just a machine. Part of the >difficutly faced by some patients with glaucoma is a result of anxiety >deriving from the illness. Other fears and anxieties are the result of >doctors who think like you.  They look with scorn on patients who present >unusual symptoms and anxiety.  They ignore the objective fact that the >patient is suffering.  They do so with the same cavalier attitude that you >express.  They see themselves as scientists of the objective, as men of >material fact.  I have wondered if in fact there is something about the >vulnerability of the eye to attack that draws men such as these… and such >as you.  Why are you so heartless about people’s feelings?  Why might >people think it better to avoid tough guys like you and risk blindness? >Just what scientific advances have you made in the field of vision?  Have >you ever read much in the philosophy of science?  Have you done anything >but act like a little five year old being cheeky?   >I criticize you as man rather than as a psychologist. I am not diagnosising >you, I am judging you.   I do not have you handy to give tests to but I do >not need them to see what you are.  You are mean, you are ignornant, you >derive much pleasure from frightening others, and you desperately need >others attention. One does not have to be a psychologist to see that you >are basically a frightened, destructive man.  What do you think it would >harm if a survey of symptoms were collected from patients?  How would that >not be useful as a prelude to experimentation? If we could map out the >experiences and symptoms of patients, perhaps the ignorance of concretistic >folks such as yourself could be transcended. We could isolate patterns of >symptoms and experiences and discover the physical correlates of these. We >could use experience as a means of uncovering physical problems– including >those problems that are yet uncovered by the established science.   This >information could then be used in both experimental and quasiexperimental >research.  You seem to think that there is no need for a doctor to listen >to his patients.  This attitude has held back the development of medicine >for thousands of years. Whose side are you on?   >Raymond, ever had a machine gun held on you? Or a knife? Ever been beaten >to near death?  Ever been sick to near death?  Ever sacrifice years of work >for a moral or ethical reason?   Ever bury a child, Raymond Tough Guy?  I >have. Your talk is cheap because you mind is uncultivated. I do not need a >test to see this, I have seen the same in others.  You attack people of >feeling because you feel so empty inside, except for anger.  You feel the >need to dominate, just as do many eye doctors.  And you are cowardly enough >to equate the experience of pain with weakness.   >Get used to me Raymond.  I have seen enough of your kind in this blindness >business to not give up defending the place of feelings and patients’ >ability to make objective observations.  I have a long  way to go before I >am blind, if ever, and I will be waiting for your next piece of idiotic >sophistry.  I have endured pain for many years, of both emotional and >physical sorts.  You do not frighten me but I am afraid you frighten others >who may not understand you.  Do you not realise that all your opining on >these newgroups is just your way of whining for attention?  Why don’t you >just openly ask for sympathy.  You might get it.  And would that be so bad? >Bill   >This article was posted from <A HREF="http://www.slurp.net/">Slurp Net</A>.

Response:

For a couple of years now I have been peaking into this newsgroup hoping to learn more about the experience of glaucoma.  I have seen very little concerning the experience of going blind or visually impaired. Mostly I have seen a few people pretending to be experts on medicine. It seems that everybody has an opinion on this or that drug or procedure.  I have mailed several posts asking if anyone else with glaucoma experiences eye pain. I have heard no responses.  A  year or so ago I sent similar questions concerning the experience of many colored dots in the visual field.  I met mostly with the same stupidity and conceit I have encountered from most of my doctors- but not all.   With all the millions of people who have glaucoma, I am surprised that there are not more on this newsgroup who have something to say about how they feel or what they think about glaucoma.  Is no one afraid?  Do none of you experience isolation as you lose your vision?  Has glaucoma changed your lives in anyway? Or is this newsgroup just for people who want to play doctor?   I am not asking you all this as a psychologist but as a person who daily endures eye pain and who still sees thousands of colored dots over everything.  I am sick of hearing people with and without MD degrees cover up their lack of compassion and knowledge with their poorly thought out opinions.  It occurs to me that this group could be quite useful in organizing support and advocacy endeavors for people with glaucoma and other illnesses.  How many of you know what it feels like to have a doctor dismiss your pain or difficulties reading, as though you did not deserve his concern? For you experts on the mechanics and politics of glaucoma, do you ever wonder why people do not share more of their fears and psychological adaptations to glaucoma on this newsgroup?  I understand that misery and the feeling of victimization (even by indifferent forces of nature) went out with the Reagan years.  I know many people believe that pain is just for weaklings– at least until they live with it long enough. But are all of you experts so easy with the thought of your own potential blindness that you can so easily whistle past the grave yard (blindness) ?   I wonder what Joseph Conrad would have written about loss of sight?  What might Dostoevsky have said?  Any of you experts read anything but opinions concerning this drug or that procedure?  Ever think about what some of us have ahead of us? What some of us live with daily? Bill   This article was posted from <A HREF="http://www.slurp.net/">Slurp Net</A>.

Response:

Raymond, You make my point so clearly!  First, you dismiss me as a nut case for defending the place of emotions and psychology.  None-the-less, you never stop expressing your own emotions in your endless posts to this and other vision newsgroups.  You are more emotional than I.  I simply have a wider range of emotions.  Hatred and stupid condescension are your specialities. Its part of the tough guy-engineer attitude that apparently not even your colleagues in electical engineering could further suffer. And it is very much to my original point about people playing doctor on this newsgroup.  By throwing about a lot of techincal terms that you lack the education to use, much less to prescribe, you feel as though you are in control of a situation.  And perhaps you do gain some control by learning the lingo.  But you go many steps beyond.  You place yourself above those who lack your technical expertise and who operate from a more overtly and honest emotional basis.  You mustify emotionally vulnerable people, some of whom are probably far more intelligent and generally educated than you. Raymond, you have forgotten that I am not so vulnerable as your usual victims. Let me remind you that I am not one of those psychologists who sits around soliciting tears and hugs from patients.  I am a research psychologist and am more at home with numbers and technical lingo than is either your average flake or otherwise educated person.  But I have held a number of hands and appreciated the validity of tears. As a scientist I learned to listen to people’s unusual reports.  These led to several significant discoveries. These reports humbled my sophomoric tendencies to the tough-mathematician-scientist-type psychologist attitude.  I learned a thing or two more than the vain professors could teach me.  People like you give scientists a bad name.  Science and compassion are by no means incompatible.  You alienate people from these vision support groups by playing tough guy.  You are actually a mean little man who failed in his career and I am not intimidated by you.  I understand you.  I have tolerated narrow souled people like you for a long time.  I know that your facade of technical sophistication is a cover up for what is missing inside. So insult me if you wish.  I would have more respect, however, if you would reserve your bullying for the newsgroup for bitter old electrical engineers. The fact is that several people on this newsgroup have been very helpful to me over the past few days. I am perhaps a lucky one.  I am the squeeking wheel that is getting some oil.   My concern is how others will respond to people like you.  I think you do a lot of damage and a number of people have complained to me about your behavior on these newsgroups.  Why don’t you just grow up or go back to proding resistors and broken automobile starters or whatever it is you devoted your life to before playing doctor on the internet?  Maybe you are attacking sick people because it feeds your sick personality.  If you must attack, why not attack the aggressors against of those who you dismiss as merely emotional?  Too close to home? Bill This article was posted from <A HREF="http://www.slurp.net/">Slurp Net</A>.

Response:

Hi William; Dr. Robert Ritch responds; >In alt.support.glaucoma, "William Chambers" <willi…@roman.net> >wrote: >For a couple of years now I have been peaking into this newsgroup >hoping to learn more about the experience of glaucoma.  I have seen >very little concerning the experience of going blind or visually >impaired.

Get Eye to Eye back issues from The Glaucoma Foundation. I have been getting my patients to write about this. There is a major scarcity of personal reports on such a common topic. >It seems that everybody has an opinion on this or that drug >or procedure.

what else is new? >  I have mailed several posts asking if anyone else with >glaucoma experiences eye pain.

many, many > Is no one afraid?  Do none of you experience isolation as >you lose your vision?  Has glaucoma changed your lives in anyway? Or >is this newsgroup just for people who want to play doctor?

If you’re a psychologist, there is alot that needs to be done with psychology with respect to glaucoma. Want to volunteer? >I am not asking you all this as a psychologist but as a person who >daily endures eye pain and who still sees thousands of colored dots >over everything.

You may have Charles Bonnet syndrome, a rare condition characterized by complex visual hallucinations occurring in people with glaucoma. contact my fellow, Dr. Robert Rothstein, who is working on this, at the address above and work out the details with him. > It occurs to me that this group could be >quite useful in organizing support and advocacy endeavors for people >with glaucoma and other illnesses.  How many of you know what it feels >like to have a doctor dismiss your pain or difficulties reading, as >though you did not deserve his concern?

I have seen this happen hundreds of times. That’s why our motto is "We start where others quit". >For you experts on the mechanics and politics of glaucoma, do you ever >wonder why people do not share more of their fears and psychological >adaptations to glaucoma on this newsgroup?

why don’t the ophthalmologists with glaucoma who can really provide details write about it?

Response:

In article <01bd0838$adab08e0$LocalH…@chambers.roman.net>, "William Chambers" <willi…@roman.net> wrote:

[...] — Dear "Doctor" Chambers: Evidently you are very new to this group. You must be sufficiently intelligent to be able to sort our the posters who are "…pretending to be experts on medicine…" and sifting through those who have opinions on "…this or that drug or procedure…" If you can do that, you might be able to gain a little information from some of us who have had glaucoma (for the past 30 years) and who are willing to share our experiences with the group. I assume that you know how to separate out the anecdotal data from true research results. My own personal interest is to try to give support and encouragement to those who have been recently diagnosed with glaucoma and who therefore are apprehensive about the whole situation and who need more comprehensive information. Anecdotal data (my case): I have been a glaucoma patient for the past 27 years, since I was diagnosed (at age 39) until today.  I have used ten or twelve different drugs, including the "Ocuserts" from Alza Corp., where I was a test subject in the clinical trials program. I have had a cataract problem, with lens replacement about three years ago and an Argon Laser Trabeculoplasty (ALT) procedure within the past three months. My vision today (measured about two weeks ago) was 20/20 (corrected).  Not too bad for a 66 year-old engineer! Glaucoma is an ailment that can and should be fought vigorously. There are dozens of drug therapies available, with several followup procedures readily available. Glaucoma patients, and especially, newly diagnosed patients, should not be afraid to ask their care providers for the best of today’s available therapies. There’s a lot to be gained! Best of luck! earle — – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->For a couple of years now I have been peaking into this newsgroup hoping to >learn more about the experience of glaucoma.  I have seen very little >concerning the experience of going blind or visually impaired. Mostly I >have seen a few people pretending to be experts on medicine. It seems that >everybody has an opinion on.  I have mailed >several posts asking if anyone else with glaucoma experiences eye pain. I >have heard no responses.  A  year or so ago I sent similar questions >concerning the experience of many colored dots in the visual field.  I met >mostly with the same stupidity and conceit I have encountered from most of >my doctors- but not all.   With all the millions of people who have >glaucoma, I am surprised that there are not more on this newsgroup who have >something to say about how they feel or what they think about glaucoma.  Is >no one afraid?  Do none of you experience isolation as you lose your >vision?  Has glaucoma changed your lives in anyway? Or is this newsgroup >just for people who want to play doctor?   >I am not asking you all this as a psychologist but as a person who daily >endures eye pain and who still sees thousands of colored dots over >everything.  I am sick of hearing people with and without MD degrees cover >up their lack of compassion and knowledge with their poorly thought out >opinions.  It occurs to me that this group could be quite useful in >organizing support and advocacy endeavors for people with glaucoma and >other illnesses.  How many of you know what it feels like to have a doctor >dismiss your pain or difficulties reading, as though you did not deserve >his concern? >For you experts on the mechanics and politics of glaucoma, do you ever >wonder why people do not share more of their fears and psychological >adaptations to glaucoma on this newsgroup?  I understand that misery and >the feeling of victimization (even by indifferent forces of nature) went >out with the Reagan years.  I know many people believe that pain is just >for weaklings– at least until they live with it long enough. But are all >of you experts so easy with the thought of your own potential blindness >that you can so easily whistle past the grave yard (blindness) ?   I wonder >what Joseph Conrad would have written about loss of sight?  What might >Dostoevsky have said?  Any of you experts read anything but opinions >concerning this drug or that procedure?  Ever think about what some of us >have ahead of us? >What some of us live with daily? >Bill   >This article was posted from <A HREF="http://www.slurp.net/">Slurp Net</A>.

               __             __/_            /_/_/              /_/_   earle               /_/   jones We want our Internet back!  Get rid of Spam.    See http://www.cauce.org

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Raymond A. Chamberlin wrote: > On Mon, 29 Dec 1997 08:54:01 -0600, Super-UserTony Diller > <trd…@mail.seedburo.com> wrote: > …….. > >I fit into the catagory where if there are two out of the three > >things (elevated IOP, cupping > >of the optic nerve, and the third is decreased field of view I think), anyway > >I had two out of the three. > >I was taking optipranilol up till last week when the doctor switched me over to > >xalatan. the doctor > >says I have what he calls "dispersion" type of glaucoma. As far as field of > >vision goes I have it checked > >every year and have not seen any decrease since the first one three years ago. > You don’t *know* whether you have any defects in your field of vision > — or you know that you have a little but it has not gotten worse? > Ray

  I do know, I have no degradation in my vision. I could have spelled that out better. I have noticed that I have fewer problems taking the xalatan than I did when on the optipranolol. The only problem I have is that with the xalatan I am supposed to put it in at night. This kinda messes up my routine but I’ll get used to it.

Response:

On Tue, 16 Dec 1997 09:53:12 -0500, YZZP…@nospamprodigy.com wrote: ………. >What I found was a lot of talk about how >to reverse visual damage

You found that *here* as to *glaucoma*?  Did you find it convincing? Exactly how did anyone claim this could be done? ……….

Ray

Response:

On 18 Dec 97 14:39:42 GMT, "William Chambers" <willi…@roman.net> wrote: >Raymond, >You make my point so clearly!  First, you dismiss me as a nut case for >defending the place of emotions and psychology.  None-the-less, you never >stop expressing your own emotions in your endless posts to this and other >vision newsgroups.  You are more emotional than I.  

Does that mean I win or I lose? >I simply have a wider >range of emotions.  

Well, I wouldn’t want to refute an autopsychologist. >Hatred and stupid condescension are your specialities. >Its part of the tough guy-engineer attitude that apparently not even your >colleagues in electical engineering could further suffer.

More telediagnosis.  Hey, I thought you were against that. >And it is very much to my original point about people playing doctor on >this newsgroup.  

See above. >By throwing about a lot of techincal terms that you lack >the education to use, much less to prescribe, you feel as though you are in >control of a situation.  

Jealous? >And perhaps you do gain some control by learning >the lingo.  

A psychologist, of all people, putting down lingo! >But you go many steps beyond.  You place yourself above those >who lack your technical expertise and who operate from a more overtly and >honest emotional basis.  You mustify emotionally vulnerable people, some of >whom are probably far more intelligent and generally educated than you.

I must admit that I’m totally uneducated in mustification.  Please demystify me as to what it is.  Speculating again?  I thought were condemning *us* for that. >Raymond, you have forgotten that I am not so vulnerable as your usual >victims. Let me remind you that I am not one of those psychologists who >sits around soliciting tears and hugs from patients.  I am a research >psychologist and am more at home with numbers and technical lingo than is >either your average flake or otherwise educated person.  

I’m also not quite clear on the type of education flake acquire, but please, let’s not get into that. >But I have held a >number of hands and appreciated the validity of tears. As a scientist I >learned to listen to people’s unusual reports.  These led to several >significant discoveries. These reports humbled my sophomoric tendencies to >the tough-mathematician-scientist-type psychologist attitude.  I learned a >thing or two more than the vain professors could teach me.

D

Related Posts

Write a comment