Thanks for the hard work Philip, don't give up when those freelance pieces don't get picked up--you've got unbelievable talent as a journalist to ever give up. Just keep pushing it to the limits.

I can't give as much as I did last round but I'll contribute what I can.

you might want to try google ad words

nope, google ad words are a massive rip off and i wouldn't recommend them to anyone else ever.

As only a peripheral participant in this blog site for a few months, I do believe that if this site is important to you, Philip, you need to do some soul searching as to define who is the target audience to be served by your work. And that is what it is, serving the people you know and feel will benefit and respond to your efforts. I have no expertise or experience in blogging, but if I was to explore looking for revenue sources, I would have to at least listen to what such sources would be expecting to make it worthwhile to them to fund you. I would guess that reliable advertisers would want to see a diverse audience be involved. As of now, the choir, in my opinion, scares away such revenue sources. That may be fine, but to rely on contributors every three months will get exasperating, again in my opinion.

I am not suggesting pharma support, not that they would give it anyway, nor the AMA or APA. But, as I have said before and again now, you get a core group of physicians/providers reading and interacting AND being treated fairly by other commenters, it could make this site viable, if not profitable. I know you will blow this comment off, but I still forward it and relate it to you and others to see Furious Seasons stay in the process. As I related in my email, I can't support you if I will continue to be mercilessly attacked by the choir. Difference of opinion is one thing; being shouted down and accused of truly irresponsible things is unacceptable.

Still do not read many providers chiming in these last few months. Reading me get bashed scares them away? It would me if I came in of late.

Maybe this comment will provoke healthy dialogue?

therapyfirst (psychiatrist)

Supporting this site should be based on the news and merit of the site itself, not aa blogging comment section.

If one truly appreciates Furious Seasons and the work written here, the hosting (for free as a community service)of the Zyprexa documents, one would read the author, and contribute to a cause/item they want to support to see continue as a valued resource.

Suggesting to not support the site due to a "choir" would be the same as stopping the NY Times for not agreeing with the Letter to the Editor choir.

I support Philip 100% and it has nothing to do with the comment section here!

Stephany, I agree that what makes the blog superb is Philip's reporting. The comment sections are fairly moderated and quite civil, especially compared to virtually anything else.

One day, we'll look back on these early days of FS and be so very glad Philip stuck it out.

He's a hero.

I second Stephany.
I did not understand this:
Suggesting to not support the site due to a "choir" would be the same as stopping the NY Times for not agreeing with the Letter to the Editor choir.
And I don't think that neither the "choir" and physicians have opinions.
Medicine is not supposed to be practiced based on opinions.
Side effects, withdrawal symptoms, lasting side effects after off of drugs, misdiagnoses, violent behaviour caused by drugs, iatrogenic diseases and all problems raised by Philip are quite real not opinions.
I'm sorry but it sounds childish to me hearing "if you treat me well I'll give you a candy".

Thank you, TF, for reminding me once again that--as always--it's All About You.

So I'll be a hypocrite for writing here:

I just want to know if Philip has to end this blog where all of you will go to spew your venom and outrage.

By the way, Sherry & others who make such statements as above, do you understand the concept of projection? I certainly do. It is about you, and the objective readers will figure it out. I may be wrong, but do you think invested advertisers want to fund this extremism? Isn't that what Philip alluded to in the posting in the first place?

Oh, I forgot, narcissism is never wrong, eh?

rage on, o' wronged ones! I look forward to reading you try it at other sites that set firmer limits.

And if I didn't care, I wouldn't have responded. Just trying to encourage insight. Sometimes you have to be a bit harsh to bring it out!

Again I say, that I would not use commenters as a reason not to fund this site. That is the most arrogant comment I have ever read here, and if it was my site being funded and TF sent me his referenced email above, I would have declined the monetary support, and wished him well on his journey of self-discovery.

This site is far too important for this blaming of not funding due to a person's opinion of regular commenters. (and coming from a psychiatrist? it sounds more like a self-centered junior high student).

Good luck with the fundraiser Philip, my support will not be and has never been influenced by the comment section.

Perhaps, the Daily Kos will follow TF's advice and silence those radical voices so it too can attract those invested advertisers?

I just love it when psychiatrists use diagnoses as weapons. How very..."professional" of you, TF. I'm flattered to be receiving your services for free, without having to leave the comfort of my home, no less.

When I send in my quarterly pittance, it's because I value the quality of Philip's work. If I didn't care for the comments I'd simply stop reading them. Somehow that seems more mature than endless snarking.

I'll shut up now, out of respect for Philip and other posters here.

It is both sad and clueless how so many of you discount reality for your own petty needs. This man tells you in so many words he is struggling to make his work continue, which I have countlessly agreed with has a strong value to the debate about responsible mental health care, (which he goes on to note in the posting today (sept 12)), and yet he and you as a collaborative commentary group dismiss the role the threads play in the blog?

Get a life! If you are going to invite commentary, it is PART of the blog, not some useless extension. If Dr Carlat or Clin Psych let you folks start railing away in their postings, they would either ban you or end up being seen as less relatable to the dialogue that NEEDS TO OCCUR to fix these issues. In the end, it is not about quantity, it is about quality. I would like to know how this british evaluation concluded Furious Seasons role in the Blog process, not that they shouldn't have done so, but what qualities do they look for in deeming a site important to the process. I would love to know what is said about commentary portions to the blogs in general as part of that assessment.

Hey, until someone can RELIABLY report that advertisers have no interest in commentary portions to their consideration to support or not, my comment stands as a legitimate reason.

In my opinion, you just don't want Philip to use this as a source so it takes control out of your hands as his choir. It is WHO supports him that defines his affiliation, not anyone in general supports him. I'm responding back to show I am interested in his staying viable. I don't give a shit who stays or goes or gets banned, I just would like to participate in fair and reasonable dialogue when I comment; it ain't happenin' here folks, and you are as far from objective to say otherwise. Go back and read some threads from late June through mid August and read IT ALL, not just your pathetic selections to validate your own points.

Hey, reality check here, folks. I'm a person first, so don't try to use my professionalism to stymy me to gain your own end. The politics of hate has no boundaries, so deal with the fact I have rights to come back at you when you insult, insinuate, and slander me. It may be gone, but that pathetic lie printed here by someone masquerading as an alleged patient of mine won't be forgottne by me!!! I won't fund a site that allows it, because if I am going to donate money, I expect to be able to participate and be respected; not catered to or worshipped, mind you, just be seen as an equal participant. You folks ruin that opp, not Philip.

Have a nice weekend (sorry sarcastic tone can't come through in the type!!!)

I find this commentary from Therapy First completely insulting to Philip.

I just cannot understand a shallow-minded viewpoint like this. To threaten not to support a site that a person appears to value, due to a personal beef with commenters, blows my mind.

This is a time to PROMOTE THIS BLOG NOT TEAR IT DOWN and attempt to convince readers that the comment section is reason the fundraiser is going at a slow pace!

I've been reading and commenting here for 2.5 yrs at least, and have never, ever come across one commenter so offensive as TF.

Any new readers here, should take note of the quality of writing, and support Furious Seasons, authored by a person attempting to make a living in an industry that is in much need of what he is attempting to do on this blog.

He is a print journalist with high integrity, and completely above petty BS.

PS- Yes, Philip is trying to make ends meet and pay bills and rent, like any other person in this world, and that is why he needs funding, and I for one will not use the heated discussions to stop me from donating!! (and never have!)

End of rant!

Stephany,

The beef is entirely of TF's doing. He brings the wood, pours the gas, lights the fire, fans the flame, and then complains about the response time (or lack thereof in his opinion) of the firewatch.

I don't actually believe he's a psychiatrist. It doesn't matter. Trolls will be trolls.

Funny how titled feel entitled.

Paul,
I also doubt this person is a psychiatrist. He does nothing but insult trying to "psycologise" commenters using terms he don't understand.
Open your blog TF and explain how you have the most great ideas on treating your patients.
This would be of great help: a good psychiatrist, as you claim you are, explaining his insights on treating diseases.
Or you could explain them here. I still don't know what you're trying to convey here because all you say is so familiar!

You know what is fascinating about this site since I started commenting 3 months ago: 95% of the comments besides mine only echo the blogger, for the most part.

Is that coincidence, or maybe, just maybe, you as the choir fulfill the agenda that just repeat the message gives it validity.

Philip, I ask you this as a journalist and a credible investigator: do you only want validation, or does some part of you hope and respect challenge and dissent? I don't think you really embrace this band of hostile takeover that has run this commentary section, but I think you have made an innocent but unfortunate mistake to not reexamine it. Or, unfortunately I have to offer this as a second choice: you have fallen into the trap of believing the hype.

I have never wanted to see people leave or be dismissed as trivial. Yet, if you read how I have been treated since commenting, that is what the majority of your followers have responded to me. They hate my profession, and because I am in that profession, they hate me. Isn't that kind of generalization both ignorant and cruel?

If a cop is guilty of a crime, are all cops guilty? If you follow the reasoning of this group, the answer is yes. Again, any objective reader who would go back and read the threads these past three months would be intrigued, that I would hope.

I have had few issues with you as the author. I read this posting about your concerns of having to reduce your efforts in this site, and I genuinely think that is a shame and a loss. I have to say that after the past few weeks, I am at a loss what is the true agenda of this blog: to be popular, or to expose wrongs, poor choices, and redirect the public to expect and get better care. I may be one voice of a sea of opposite opinion, but I believe you want these things that are better. Your choir wants blood and retribution. That will not solve anything in my opinion.

If you don't believe me, if this group has the guts to be as painfully honest and direct as I sense they have been at times past, just read what is said hereon. Or, will the choir just tactfully ignore me and continue their agenda. And what is that agenda; end psychiatry as a profession? Remove medication from treatment intervention options? Deny that there are psychiatric illnesses? That is what I have read the majority of you write as a group. And you know what, I don't expect most if any of you to say otherwise, because you are at peace with your choices and needs. I have mistakenly and painfully come back because my idealism and hope drives me to think there are alternatives to see mental health care get back on track. What a mistake that would be in your eyes, eh?

How about this as a challenge to new and unbiased readers? read the postings this year and the threads as you have time. Does this site encourage progress, or rants, or something else I can't identify.

As far as I am concerned, the choir sucks as it stands, and I hope others who feel different from them have the guts to come on here and challenge you as a group further and either restore dialogue, or, once and for all you are just a band of unfortunate souls who lost an opportunity to make a difference for the majority who have a stake in this process of dysfunctional mental health care. The process that makes the difference in the end will not respect extremism, but healthy difference of opinion and respect for that difference. You will be irrelevant in the end otherwise.

You know what, after writing this comment, I am at peace with my goals being a participant in the blog process. There has to be debate, or else truth and integrity is flushed.

Philip, thank you for the education and insight, and I truly mean this, no sarcasm. I am not here to rain on success, but to build on it. Dissent, if done with respect and healthy agenda, only enhances improvement and progress. I hope you would agree with this position.

Good luck to you Philip, I hope you make a difference.

therapyfirst

You know TF, I hate to beat this to death here, but I'm trying to figure out your point. I take issue w/ your threat to stop funding the site due to your own personal dislike of commenters, and I wonder when I read your comments who you consider "the choir". (that's a provoking term which I am also ignoring)

I have been a regular on this site far too long to not speak up here with regard to the other commenters here.

I find them all interesting, they have had horrific circumstances, some are mothers who have lost children to psych meds (death),there are some who have been involuntarily committed by family members w/out good reason, there are ppl w/bipolar who have lost jobs as a result of discrimination, and then there is me.

For a very long time, I took the heat for being a "mother". I became defensive everytime anyone w a bad mother story spoke out. I had to sit back and embrace their stories, fully knowing they did not apply to me, just because I am a mom.

We, I believe as a collective group, care about the other and I look forward to seeing what we all have to say, and there are guaranteed topics where one of us will speak up, and we know what's near and dear to our hearts.

That's the beauty of this forum. There are other blogs where there is no civil behaviour or commentary and this one is open, diverse and encouraged.

It's the one place we can let loose and have discussions and learn from people, real people w real pain and suffering.

I also believe Philip encourages comments, likes them and likes the stats they gain. Yes, it is about being a popular blog, and his journalism speaks for itself, but the stats need to bring in the bucks.

Maybe you don't read a lot of blogs, or check out Reddit or other places these posts end up...there are far more readers than commenters, so to imagine the support is diminished due to "the choir" you are wrong.

You are also not the only professional to comment here, and yet you are the only professional to sound the trumpet that you are present and offended at all times.

Have a good weekend.

The other day I found myself thinking that TF who--if he really IS a psychiatrist and not merely a troll--makes more money than anyone else here (lots of us are struggling to survive on less than $800 a month SS) would probably find *some* excuse to not contribute to Philip's fundraiser. I don't know why this came to me, but it did.

Of course, there's nothing wrong with not donating. It's entirely a personal choice, one many readers have made. But, of course, as I drove home I realized our friend TF would need to find some bogus, trumped up reason for his lack of support. It would need to be something that was entirely the fault of others, of course. And he would then proclaim this injustice loudly and in the most self-serving manner possible--all the while disowning any responsibility for his choice.

When I got home a few hours later, there it was. Wow. A truly disturbing (if he IS a shrink, which I now am doubting) rant. Complete with excuses for him not to support Philip's fundraiser. And here I was, thinking I lacked psychic abilities.

I've met a ton of people on line over the years. In one way you never know who's on the other end of the line. In another way, though, people often do reveal more of themselves than they intend to. Some people are trolls and I find myself hoping that's what's going on here. I never thought I'd see the day I'd say that.

I've also seen out-of-control rants when the poster drinks heavily at times. This is usually combined with ongoing daily trollish behaviours. It happens all the time in everyday life; online life is not immune to this phenomenon. One of my college professors, a nationally renowned expert on criminology used to be so stoned on tranquilizers he could barely stand up at the lectern at times. He was known far and wide for his nasty, aggressive personality in daily life.

This latest rant of TF's revealed a very disturbed--and disturbing--personality. I've worked on both sides of the desk and, trust me, there are some very disturbed--and disturbing--pdocs out there, abusive people who have no business making any sort of judgment about their fellow humans. But they are in practice and we must deal with them as best we can.

That latter possibility is what makes me hope this person is merely a troll. It's scary to think someone as juvenile and vindictive as this one could ever be allowed to have power over anyone else's life. But, of course, so often people who crave illegitimate power over others head for the very professions that allow that possibility. I've run into this over and over, in my professional and personal life.

This is not to say that there aren't some truly helpful, dedicated mental health professionals out there. Most of us here owe our lives to those folks. But we know what they look like. And what they don't. We can tell the difference.

"We, I believe as a collective group, care about the other and I look forward to seeing what we all have to say, and there are guaranteed topics where one of us will speak up, and we know what's near and dear to our hearts."

Stephany,
We felt so much alone that finding someone that has an amazing work uniting us all is a blessing.
After finding some conclusions from our experiences with some psych drugs and having nobody to share or to validate what we have found can be very stressful and painful.
We feel very isolated because others haven't a clue about our fight.
If we are echoing Philip I believe that he is telling some of our lonely experiences.
Or perhaps we are all having a collective delusion. :)
Philip, have you been posting brainwashing words?
Don't do it!
{laughing}

Philip,
I don't understand! People from churches do brainwashing sections and make a lot of money.
I know, I know!
You have already received a huge amount of money but the thermometer on the right don't show.
Ok master!
Today I'll be at the airport selling flowers.
I hope you all do the same.

Though I don't often comment here and therefore probably couldn't be considered part of "the choir" by anyone's definition, I've also found that term to be provocative, as well as quite dismissive. There seems to be greater diversity of opinion on this blog than on many others I've seen. If my opinion has any value, I think the disputes between TherapyFirst and some of the regular commenters here are more the result of personality conflict, or "bad chemistry", rather than anything to do with a clash between psychiatry and anti-psychiatrists. There seem to be some personal animosities here that probably aren't going to be resolved, but I don't think more censorship is called for - as long as potentially libelous statements aren't posted I think it's probably best to let free expression reign.

Stephany:

you were the one who directed me to this site in early June via Carlat's site, but I doubt you remember that, and maybe you could find the time to go back to some of those mid June/early July postings and read some of the "engaging" and "respectful" comments by your peers when I tried to weigh in on some of the issues. Remember Poe? Such a fine, outstanding gentleman who really knew me so well and was so supportive [not]. Let's note Sally's "shoot them (psychiatrists) all" retort. My lasting memory is Sorrowful accusing me of killing my patients last month. Such insightful, productive, supportive commentary.

My mistake, I should have said inciteful, nonproductive, and very unsupportive commentary. And now in this thread you attack my professionalism by inferring I am not a psychiatrist and the wrong tone of my comments. Certainly disputes my position about the choir (much sarcasm), which I would agree with Kent above a term intended to be provocative and demeaning. And he is also on the mark, in my opinion, about the clash of personality here. Whoa, probably an understatement in fact. I guess I am a little intolerant to read people bash an entire profession just because the one or few docs who crossed their paths did not perform admirably. Yes, from what little I know, some of them probably are guilty of malpractice and malfeasance. Then go after them legally!!! I am a firm believer of reporting impaired physicians; did it once, and was run out of town by my peers who are the cowards and whores I have called them at other sites. Is this site here to gain productive exposure, or just publicity. These terms can be exclusive, you know.

I would like to hear what other sites make this one look so civil and fair. I have been educated by those with more internet experience that, by in large, blogs are intended to voice opinions without the censorship of general media, and many are intolerant of dissent or debate, even if offered in a healthy, well intended manner. While I do not say Philip is hostile or demeaning, the same cannot be said for the choir, unless there is a term for this collective you would rather I use in the future?

Rationalize, minimize, deflect, and intellectualize as you do. As I said above, I am more interested if others like Kent would weigh in and take risks to voice opinions, pro or con to Philip's reporting. The majority probably will be moreso antipsychiatry. I hope they say so in a manner I would respect and consider; I am interested in dissent and challenge, so I can learn from it and make gains. So far all I have learned in these threads is arrest all psychiatrists, put them to death, end prescription drug availability, and psychiatric diagnoses are not real. Now these are realistic and effective solutions, right!?!?

Politics of hate, folks. That is what comes across in these threads. I would certainly be interested to read Philip weigh in, but I think he has several times already in the past, and I agree with his points for the most part. You want to hold me to a standard that as a psychiatrist I have to be always civil and speak in manners that allow you the upper hand because those boundaries do not apply to you. I can't be harsh or attacking, because psychiatrists can't do that. I have to hold my tongue when people are outraged, because I am to be "the better person". Well, I ain't treatin' you folks, we're not in my office, and I ain't holdin' my tongue when comments are put forth that accuses all of my profession as villians and demons. And I'll bet this site's alleged better cordiality is so Philip can get the accolades, or else if people really got inappropriate, then, maybe after all, the threads have an impact on recognition by Award organizations.

I don't weigh in on the Child and Adolescent stuff, so don't worry I'll comment there. Don't even read the threads. Shudder to think what you folks say there!

Kent: thanks for the comments. By the way, in my opinion, libelous stuff has happened, but responsibly omitted once raised. Isn't that correct, my "former patient"? After that experience, you think I would reveal my name to you for verification? Philip knows who I am, and that should be good enough for you all.

Hereon, "the collective". And if this insults someone who feels they have put forth reasonable and fair commentary, my sincere apologies to you now. Any regular reader knows who I target as the collective, 'cause you have read what I have noted. As I always say, you decide.

therapyfirst: board certified psychiatrist x 11 year now!

I, for one am always glad to read your comments Kent.

It might be more useful if TF could spell out specifically who the choir, now called collective, is. I don't think TF has been especially clear who he will target for attack. A list would be very convenient.

I also suggest TF makes an anagram or such from the names to make it a bit more insightful, productive, and supportive. I also expect TF to devise an unconfusing way to keep the list updated, as peeople fall in and out of his favor, without disrupting the choir, now called collective, anagram. If it changes too frequently, or gets too long, it will cease to be a term intended to be provocative and demeaning and be just a silly thing.

If entry into the choir, now called collective, requires the adoption of beliefs put forth by TF above, is there a separate term intended to be provocative and demeaning for those who only ascribe to a subset of those holdings? Will they put on a different list? Will this group get a fancy anagram,too?

TF you can doubt if I remember directing you here if you want to, I even wrote a post highlighting your outspoken comment on Carlat's blog back then, and you loved Philip's article on his 18 yr journey on psych meds.

I simply see you wind up here, as you did on Carlat's blog (remember me telling you that you appeared to need a vacation?)and I am simply mystified at your holding back funds for someone (Philip) due to a comment section. That does not make sense to me, but that's not my business, though you've made it everyone's business by announcing it here.

I am also insulted about the "choir" and "o-wronged ones" comments you direct at ppl here, and frankly as a professional, those words SHOCK me.

Good day.

TF-
PS I never inferred or made a statement that you were not a psychiatrist.

Suggested reading forums are Daily Kos, Huff Post to start.

Personally, this is my last beating of the dead horse on this TF topic--because the questions I raised were still not answered, and the use of the word "Choir" is insulting.

Though I am not losing sleep over it or TF.

Onwards, and good to know TF only reads this thread not the bp kids one...where he could learn from mothers like me with disabled daughters, who have not sued psychiatrists and who is not a grudge-bearer when I could be.

I just want other kids not to suffer like mine did. When I see her at the residential place and her hands are beginning to have permanent tremors...this is the last thing on my mind, is being part of a "collective choir on Furious Seasons".

But I am a proud member of it!

Stephany darling, if I'm ever in the shit I want you on my side!

Therapyfirst, you crack me up. I agree daily kos might be a good start for gaining insight on Internet traditions, but I'm always delighted at the opportunity to plug my favorite A list (highest traffic) blog on the net: Sadly, No! http://www.sadlyno.com/

From their wikipedia page:

Sadly, No! won the European “Satin Pajama Award” for Best Humorous Blog in 2004, was a Koufax Award (the main award of the liberal blogosphere) finalist in 2003 and 2006, and was featured as Cruel Site of the Day by Internet stalwarts Cruel.com in June, 2005. In December, 2005, the site won a Weblog Award in the ‘Best of the Top 251-500 Blogs’ category. In December, 2006, the site won the Weblog Award for Best Humor Blog.

The site’s main running joke is in finding embarrassing slips or untrue statements by conservatives and linking to a refutation, saying, “Sadly, No!” Other running gags include posting pictures of conservative columnists on Internet dating sites, battling with a “singing troll” who sends homemade songs deriding the site’s contributors and commenters, and doing line-by-line putdowns of columns by Christian evangelists and other right-wingers. Sadly, No! also occasionally publishes phony columns at right-wing sites, and engages in other pranks.

Read the comment threads of this "cruel blog" and observe the empathy, respect, devotion and polite but intimate interaction among the regulars. Cyberspace is a post-modern world, where everything is turned on its head. Something tells me you get this and are having some fun with us. I am having fun with you, am I the only one? If so, who's problem is that?

"I am having fun with you, am I the only one?"

Busted. {;>)

Flawedplan, I think you're far from the only one. Personally, I love the sound of "the collective" — it's like the Borg from StarTrek. So watch out, therapyfirst: Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated.

TF,

No shoot them all retort from me. Last straw. I'll filing a complaint with the board in the state you allege to be certified in. That will be fun.

First, the nice part to this comment:

Flawedplan, always glad to read your submissions and perspectives. The only thing I do not get is your examples of other sites seem to be political blogs, and hostility there is the standard, not an exception, so I don't see it as applicable to examples I am interested re mental health blogs. But, thanks anyway, at least you offer it in an educational and respectful manner.
Not like the collective.

Which leads me to my not so nice comment, and per Philip's standard now set via the Sept 12 posting about the NY Times piece (that is getting lots of attention at the other sites I peruse), where it seems now that it is about numbers and not about debate and difference of opinion. So Philip, you banned this person for the "Mad pride thing too far" comment, and I assume you printed the comment as forwarded. What am I missing that is so cruel and unjust that the collective has not said in even crueler and ruder ways, to me as one recipient? If this is the example that riles you, I assume the other person on that same thread who has challenged your handling of the posting is headed to bans-ville next? Or, maybe me? I hope you would at least allow this to be forwarded as my last comment, if acceptable.

You know, I have never backed down from fair and reasonable debate and difference of opinion. It has educated me, and much to the surprise to some readers here, I have been shown to be wrong, and not only learned this but appreciated it. In my line of work, as a psychiatrist, I have come to learn that sometimes, when I am wrong, I am glad. Caution and watching for worst case scenarios are part of my repetoire, not just with patients, but in general, especially these days of grim news around us. So, how does that apply here? If Philip puts out a story or perspective that raises the question of impropriety or poor judgment, I want to know about it and give some pause and consideration to its potential merit. He is probably more right than wrong. And WHEN he is wrong, is it that hard to hear being called on it? Probably not so much by Philip as it is by the collective. And, NO, I will not list them, Paul, for whatever twisted agenda you would likely spin this. COLLECTIVE is a nice anagram for me, so sorry you do not like it. Besides, one of you used it in a recent comment predeeding mine, I think it was Stephany, but I COULD BE WRONG!

So, what the hell is wrong with someone commenting they do not agree. And, as I have repeatedly pointed out these past several weeks, should the unbiased and objective reader come on board and want to weigh in, the collective does nothing of value in their attacks and absolute dismissal of such difference of opinion. I would hope and respect that if someone says "I do not agree and here's why", it is heard and rebuked so truth and facts prevail. As of now, no one has rebuked my request to review past threads and show me such fair dialogue has taken place. Silence is deafening sure seems applicable, eh?

For me, and I am sorry to have to write this to you Philip, it does validate why I am wary to donate when I feel I am providing funds just to read, not to participate. You know my position: threads are part of the blog. I do want to see you succeed, but I will not be bashed and demeaned as my thanks for financial support. And, again as it has been so projectively twisted by the collective, I do not offer this position to get people banned or controlled, just to see the process work, and work means people can agree to disagree, not be shouted down into submission or flight, or now in this case, banned.

Maybe there was more in the comment you choose to not share, and if it was demeaning and nasty, you did right as the owner. But, for what I read tonight, I sense it will do more damage than good. Think about it, please. People at other sites, like Clin Psych today, advise people to come read and contribute, and then they will go to the posting in question and read that thread and some, not all, will most likely say, "whoa, someone said they are not receptive to other commenters and then got banned; not for me, thanks". Is that what you strive for? This collective, who is the majority of the interaction as of now, or, a variety of commentary. Now the latter strikes me as a great site. And, with people who would be willing to pay if they know they can fairly weigh in.

Again, just my opinion, you decide. Note I wrote this here and NOT at that site to not bring attention to this debate, but some like me will see 30+ comments here and be intrigued to see what is so interesting to spark this commentary. I hope they will read someone like me has the tenacity to keep the issue out there for rational discussion.

Or, will those of you who despise me have something more to say that validates the point?

Thanks Sally, for the validation. Can't wait to read what the board of physician quality will say after reading your complaint:
"He doesn't like me, he tells me I am wrong, he doesn't write what I want to read."

You are "former patient", aren't you? If you are, show some guts and admit it, and deny it IF I AM WRONG! Never read you write you are wrong.

I was going to say I feel sorry for you, but that infers I am invested in you, and that is not true. Sometimes the best of providers cannot work with some patients; in this case as a fellow commenter, I just don't respect your contributions, as they are among the most meanspirited I have read since here. Your projection is textbook material. Thanks for the illustration for those who just read. And Philip, what is gained from putting that specific comment at me in here?

To finish on a better note, Underthethresher: good take! It is not Borgian though, I do not want to demean Star Trek work! But, I would like to see assimilation rejected as the Federation fought to do. Independence, what a concept!

It's funny seeing someone who does all effort to promote a irrational discussion asking for a rational discussion.

I don't take TF seriously any longer.
I'm also having fun.

Stephany,
No need to feel insulted by "choir".
I hope I'm part of the choir.
This is the bright side of interventions like this one: it makes people get united.

Please don't you ever stop commenting TherapyFirst.
Thank you for the support and the chance to make us see that we have an agenda and have so much in common.

TF,

It's just very hard to take you seriously anymore. Your points are all too pedantic and the whinging is almost unbearable.

1. You're using COLLECTIVE as a pejorative and not as an anagram - you obviously don't know the meaning of the word.

2. All I asked was for a bit of transparency, but you somehow interpret this as a "twisted agenda"? You never asked for clarification, you just jumped to a negative, incorrect conclusion. Do you not practice sarcasm, wit, and irony as an art form in your country?

3. Do you not see the irony in that by labeling people in such a pejorative fashion, you validate and propagate the feelings and views that many people here have of you as a psychiatrist? Obtuse or deliberate?

4. You openly admit the purpose is to demean. Is this how you are insightful, productive, and supportive? Is this to be the contribution to this site you will be remembered for? Not one to be proud of I should think.

5. You don't get privileges because you donate. You don't flame retardant shorts. You pay because it's worth something to you that your willing or able to put your money on. Pay or don't pay - your choice, but please stop whinging on about it.

6. Go back and read Stephany's post. She said: "We, I believe as a collective group, ..." This usage is not as saying "we are a collective group". You misinterpreted the quote and twisted it to mean something unkind and derogatory. Was that really necessary? Was it insightful, productive, and supportive?

Why not focus more on the articles than the comments? You don't have to respond to everything that offends you. Try to laugh a bit more.

Here's the deal TF. You apparently, according to your written comments here, emailed Philip your thoughts on not donating and why.

Many people have reasons for donating or not donating and you chose to make a slamming and insulting statement while announcing your disapproval of the comment section as being your reason.

Why write it at all?

If Philip is the one who needed to hear your reasons, you told him, it is just apparent you felt compelled to let the "choir" know why you werent donating to the site, giving your excuse validation that Philip probably did not give you.

btw TF-- you have not noticed by now that this site is political? pharma and medical topics ARE political and yes, you should go to FP's site she suggested, because it is an example of how FORUMS and comment sections can be--that was the point of educating you about this comment section which you've missed (the point).

TF,

You accused me of making a violent comment which I didn't make. If you are a psychiatrist, or if you're not, lying about other people and their threats of violence is a serious act.

Paul and Stephany,

I agree with all you said. I just do not take any of TF comments seriously anymore.
I never saw a single comment with good information on his clinical experience.
He does nothing but incite more and more anger.
I have better things to read!
BTW: why read TF? I have already many reasons to get angry seeing bad medicine practice.

But I really hope he does not stop commenting. Just to remember that there are bunch of people with such views and behavior.

PS: Some people when faced with ethics and dignity don't recognize it any longer.

Philip,

I am terribly troubled by TF's commnets. It took me a while to remember but I think he's accusing me of being a poster here who used the handle "former patient." I'm not that poster. I don't like having comments I didn't make attributed to me. It is in no way fun or appropriate. I do know what state TF claims to practice in because he mentioned it in Carlat's blog. It scares me that he is attributing the posts of other people to me.

No argument here, Stephany. Politics of hate.

the responses validate well.

TF,
Now you've crossed all lines!
What do you mean by "politics of hate"?
Please, show at least some self-respect.
I believe that TF is causing too much discussion on nothing and it's starting to put in jeopardy the focus of some posts.
Here we are with 46 comments most of them dedicated to nothing but answering attacks from TF.
I pity his patients!{irony}

Hate is not part of my spirit.

TF,

I disagree with your response because it does not address a single point raised by myself or anyone else. You are just being dismissive in the same way you accuse others of being (see your own posts above on this).

You don't seem to want a rational discussion, but rather prefer to rail against other people here who's view seem to really irritate you. You say you're a psychiatrist, but I'm still waiting to hear your clinical take in these discussions. Alas, all we get are comments that serve to create strife and acrimony.

Stephany is correct to note that all speech is political. Surely, you must understand this. To ascribe a term such as "politics of hate" as you do serves no useful purpose here unless you're claiming this as a clinical diagnosis. I don't think a reasonable person would interpret your comments as such nor especially serious minded.

If you don't want to address any of the points raised - that's fine, just say so without the unnecessary barbs, but then please don't expect anyone to answer yours.

Ball in your court. Try to keep it in play.

TF always trolls a little harder around fund raising time. I wonder if this is a known flaming tactic. I do think the other mhps who comment here are generally better and are certainly more coherent, still, in spite of the false accusations, it's interesting to have him post, though hard to believe he really is a mhp.

I just love the absolutes so many of you speak in.

"all speech is political" per Paul.

"I never saw a single comment with good information on his clinical experience" per Ana.
plus I love "he does nothing more than incite more and more anger" Like you folks do not?!

"Now you've crossed all lines" per Stephany.

I have come to the conclusion that some of you do not review what you write before you send it for printing, and then almost deny you wrote it when challenged on it. By the way, a sincere thank you to Sally for denying being the "former patient" I spoke of earlier. One down, about 6 to go to find you. Or, will the guilty party come clean through Philip; I will never give any one here my email address, so dream on to get that!

This posting about fundraising is the appropriate forum for this debate/bashing. Think about it, especially those of you not writing in here. You would expect a person to donate $50 or more, which is what I would have offered (now that Stephany has put out the idea Philip should consider refusing it), and then when I legitimately would comment on future postings, be subjected to the bullshit too many of you throw out at someone who does not tote the "party line" that this site has for the most part. That is absurd on levels outside the reality in this thread site. In fact, I would suggest you would like me to donate just so you could continue your bashing, because there are few outside the confines of the screens in front of you to go after without true consequences. I could be wrong, but so far, no one has really shown me facts or rational debate to prove me so.

I have to say to Paul, you really concern me with your push for details about me. I would agree, if Philip would agree to be the mediator, to provide some "transparency" outside these threads to satisfy a genuine and fair curiosity and satisfaction to end this debate of my legitimacy as a psychiatrist. Otherwise, until "former patient" admits the deed, I trust none of you with any facts to my life. Any responsible person would not only agree with me, but probably would tell me to shut up and leave this site. Like my wife!!!

Oops, now you know I am married. I actually have a satisfying relationship with another human being...... Stopping to read what I have written shows that I am stooping to the level of the collective, so I call myself a fool, but will keep what I have written and call it a day, as my eval did not show and gave me time to read this posting and comment.

I believe you, the collective, are wrong, but that is just my opinion. By the way, where are all these providers who chime in that I am missing. Must be in the C & A postings I avoid (for the most part). Irresistable force meets unmoveable object. No one is going to win here, folks. The one in 20 times I regress to the level that confronts me gets defined as my standard operation. Think about that, if you can.

Where are you, Flawed Plan?

flawed plan is at her blog, writing really good stuff. her blog is next to mine on the side bar here. if you haven't gotten to know her via her writings there, i highly recommend it to everyone.

TF-
PS-- Ana wrote "crossed all lines".

Stephany:

my mistake, I was wrong. But, the quote stands as an example of extremes/absolutes still.

Thank you for the correction.

therapyfirst

TF- thanks for the discussion. It's been a good one.

TF,

Please specify where I ever asked for personal details about you. You also never answered any questions I respectfully put to you.

TF,

Not everyone who comments speaks English as a native language, but we manage the best we can.

Also, the issue of transparency isn't about your personal detail - try reading before commenting. I was asking that you name those you consider the choir, did you not understand this?

I don't want to know anything about your person. That's up to you to share as you see fit. I am keen to here your professional, clinical take on issues here, but you've really not posted much in that regard. Please stop accusing me of things you know I haven't done. It's silly, obvious, and very boring.

hi all, i am closing comments on this thread.

philip