I'm deeply sorry.

PS: I'm also amazed.

Dear Philip:

Please let us get some clarification here!

Are you saying if Dr. Biederman came to this site and posted, you wouldn't allow us to link to the Mass General web site where he's got a nice bio displayed? That would be considered out of bounds?

Are you saying if someone attacks us related to our posting on this site at another site; that can't be copy and pasted with a link to their site and used in the comments section when responding to that persons view point?

One of the proud awful six, and the infamous S-crowd; whoever they are?

Stan

NOTE: STAN, BIEDERMAN WOULD NEVER COMMENT HERE, SO PLEASE BE REALISTIC. SOMETHING FROM AN ATTACK ON ANOTHER SITE IS OK, BUT YOU GUYS WENT AFTER SOMEONE WHO'D COMMENTED ON THIS SITE AND POSTED SEMI-PERSONAL INFO ABOUT THEM INCLUDING THEIR FULL NAME AND EMPLOYER. THIS IS UNACCEPTABLE TO ME SINCE THEY DID NOT REVEAL THIS INFORMATION THEMSELVES. PLEASE DO NOT DO THIS AGAIN OR YOU WILL BE BANNED.

PHILIP DAWDY

"Are you saying if Dr. Biederman came to this site and posted, you wouldn't allow us to link to the Mass General web site where he's got a nice bio displayed? That would be considered out of bounds?"

are you truly this stupid? really? i mean, *really*?

If someone does not want to be identified, it is their responsiblity to not provide enough information that identifies them. Someone can easily post under anonomous and no one would ever know who they are. Just my opinion, but the person being indentified should be asked to change their name if they don't want to be identified. It just seems wierd to me that if someone provides their name you are asking no one to actually use it. In fact, this is the only site I have seen that has actually asked this. IMO, I think you have asked the wrong party to change their behavior.

jane, i don't think he provided enough personal info for people to figure out who he was, but you do have a good point there. some commenters on here did some extra special digging and put out info on the other commenter that was out of bounds within the context of that person commenting on this site.

i don't even agree with most of the initial commenter's views, but i do agree with their right not to be hassled in such a personal way.

Jane:

Are you saying that everyone who posts here should have an alias, because they will have their personal information posted, and furthermore, that it is their responsibility if that happens? That is a very welcoming environment that you are planning to set up. What if someone who is computer literate is able to hack my IP address, then that is also my fault, because I posted here on my personal computer?

Or, maybe it should be up to the individuals to disclose how much of their private information they are comfortable with sharing. I stated that I am a psychiatry resident, because that was an important bit of information about me that I thought was relevant. I will also add that I am not in research and have never accepted funds from drug companies. There. That is the extent of my identity that is relevant here.

I never wanted my residence or place of employment to be made public, even if it is available online. I tried to put a positive face about it, but it really did creep me out, to be honest, and I am quite surprised that you can be so cavalier about the matter.

Aaron:

This should be not taken as a threat or be taken in a negative way; but would you like to meet me? Would you say that to me face to face in the real world?

To Others:

This is just my opinion being as stupid and as silly as I am, you may or may not wish to read this comment: {laughing out loud; nothing quite like another label: awful and stupid WOW! Flattery will get you everywhere}:

Any one claiming to be a Doctor and comes to a public forum speaking/commenting as a Doctor. That's professional advice they are handing out.
I actually would question how ethical that is in some cases? They should be exposed in public as professionals and their qualifications to be speaking from that platform; seeing as they are speaking as a claimed expert and some actually may take their advice as if it were gospel scripture from this site.

Your right though, Biederman would never come to this site to post or would he?

Some are barking out his inspired medicine, message, and platform in his image. It's not out the realm of possible scenarios that some doctor that comes here very well may become the next Biederman, Goodwin, or Nemeroff in the not so distant future.

Their arguments so far in this forum (with exception to a couple of Doctors that have revealed themselves quite clearly and have their own blogs) have been commenting straight along the lines that Goodwin, Biederman, Nemeroff, and the other usual suspects have laid the foundation for.

Now would you go to one of those Doctors for treatment knowing what you do now about them?

I personally would not trust any psychiatrist until they renounced the Pharmaceutical Industry and the medical model being used to drug and supposedly treat patients today.

Now with that said; this is Philip’s site, He makes the rules, and so if I wish to continue to post here; I will respect those rules as I respect him as a great journalist and genuine person.

One of the awful six,

Stan

I am the one who posted the information, and should and do take responsibility for it, no one else should take heat for it.

My apologies to readers for the disruption.

One more thing, I need to clarify that I did the research on my own, and other innocent commenters got caught up in this.

I apologize to Ana and Stan for that.

The bottom line? This is Philip's blog. He is the one responsible for it. He has stated the ground rules. That should be the end of it.

It doesn't matter if I agree or disagree with Philip's boundaries. They are his to draw and only his. Any of us who wishes to have other boundaries is welcome to go start a blog of his/her own.

Stan:

That is a bit of a double standard, no? For anyone who posts here who happens to agree with you, you demand no references or guarantees that their knowledge or experience is valid, but for anyone who disagrees with you, then you demand full disclosure of all personal information?

No, I am not saying everyone who posts here should use an alias, only those that don't want their personal information exposed. You presented yourself as a professional, a Psychiatrist defending the COI's in your profession, on a site I might add, that has a readership of people who have been harmed by psychotropic medications and you did this using your real name. Did you honestly believe people wouldn't check? Or did you think everyone would agree with you so it wouldn't matter? After reading the above post of yours I did a quick google search and found numerous hits for your name. Not being computer literate myself, I would guess that once I received all those hits on your name, I doubt very much your IP address has much use, as all your information has already been exposed in the google search. However, if someone exposed you based on only an IP address, then I think the people who exposed you would have a lttle fault, however, not a lot as you came here providing a professional opinion. But using an IP address is not what I took from Philips post. But, I might add, I believe I have read on this very site that drug companies have lurked in the background. While I don't know this as fact, I believe an IP address would (maybe the IP address was even given) have had to been used to determine this. So why would anyone reading here think your information wasn't fair game. As far as we know, based on just the information you yourself provided, you could very well be someone this sites exposes on a daily basis. So why would you think people wouldn't have googled your information?

And no, it was not me that set up the environment of the internet. That is the way it works. You take a stance on something, provide your real name, and people will research and share that information. But, thanks for attempting to make it appear there was a problem with me for pointing out what is common knowledge on the internet, being literate or not. You made a foolish decision and instead of taking responisbility, you want to change the rules. Exposing people is not new on the internet. Nor is it new to this site. You provide a professional opinion, you are fair game on any site you go too. People exposed your information because they thought it was relevant here. We are not sitting in your office, you are not in charge of the rules when it comes to the internet.

If you don't want your residence or place of employment made public, use a name completely unrelated to you. Again, thanks for trying to make your foolishness out to be my problem by saying "I am quite surprised that you can be so cavalier about the matter". I have had many a psychiartist try to label and manage me with this type of behavior. Isn't it funny, when I complained about shrinks behavior, no one allowed me to change the rules when I gave them to much information. No one cared if I was literate or not in the workings of the Psychiatry. So, maybe you are right, I am cavalier about your predictment.

Well, Hell's Bells,

I just stumbled into a nest of hornets fixing to stop a suicide! Crikey, Phillip, I just wanted to thank you for your kind words about the death of Hello Newman.

Heavens to Murgatroid,it looks like you have a devoted crew of readers who are more than happy to chit-chat. Golly, I envy you.

Now, I may be confused, as I haven't swallowed my nightly cock......tail of Seroquel and Mirtazapine, but it seems that you have a virtual "slam book" on your hands.

Slam books are favoured by kids, OK, girls. They put the name of each class mate on a page and then send said book around the class. They write anonymously about each other. Hence; Slam.

I write freely about myself, my illness, my life and my family. But I write under a nom de plume for one reason only. My sister and my father will no longer speak to me, whilst my mother does.

I have written about the hurt, which I don't want to be visited on my mum. But, I am proud of myself and my blog.

The web is a fantastic tool, which can be abused in so many ways. I would hope that if anyone took umbrage to my words, they would come to my site.

Comments are only that. They should not be abused and used as another platform. I started my blog because of an injustice. People who have issues with comments are free to do likewise.

I forgot to mention my apologies to D Guller for posting a comment (I think it is removed now)that referenced the work place.

I 'googled' the commenter name and the city that Guller referenced in his own comment and "invited" another commenter to visit....that simple.

Again, sorry for any disruption I have caused here.

Comments are only that. They should not be abused and used as another platform.

Abuse is the word, like the jerk in the back of the class who argues minutia with the professor, disrupting the course and holding the rest of the room captive to their batshittery. People who do it are widely ridiculed as trolls in the blogosphere, not to mention it fairly screams I-Have-Serious-Issues-Can't-Control-Myself-I-
Need-Intensive-Psychotherapy!

So many people who post here think they are destroying a rotter's public reputation when what they're really doing is putting their own pathology on display, developing *another* public reputation, which happens to be their own, and as permanent as paint.

It's funny because it's true!

Stephany,
You don't own me any apology. I'm responsible for my acts.
Once again I apologize to Dr. dguller, all the readers and Philip.

Jane:

You make some fair points about my foolishness about using my real name here, and I will assume my share of responsibility for what happened. You are correct that should have expected that people would have googled my name to find our information about me. However, I did not expect them to post it in a way that made me appear to be sinister or part of a drug company conspiracy. Do you condone the posting of personal information on this website?

Also, I think that there are implications in your position. You often post comments indicating that psychiatrists are whores for the drug industry, and that their products harm people. Would you also say any of the following to those who have been harmed by psychiatric drugs?

"no, it was not me that set up the environment of the [drug companies]. That is the way [they] works ... You made a foolish decision [to take medications] and instead of taking responisbility, you want to change the rules [of how drug companies operate]. [Harmful side effects] is not new on the [drug companies]"

The crux of your position is that I should have known better than to trust people on this forum to not post my personal information in the comments section. That argument could equally apply to those who have been harmed by psychiatric medications. Would you make the same argument for them?

Stephany and Ana:

Don't worry about it. Nobody got hurt. :)

There is a poster on this site who seems to take great pleasure in putting down just about everyone else's opinion. Furthermore, this poster seems to take great pride in being a "know it all". I question the motivation of someone who would do this constanatly, and wonder whether this poster realizes that he/she is revealing him/herself as a very insecure individual. Because much of what we say is the TRUTH, not what Pharma and Psyc. would have us believe. And much of it comes from painful experience, including losing our loved ones to lethal pharma products. Why wouldn't this person speak up for us and insist that greedy pharmas and psycs. deserve criminal trials and prison for their acts?

Sorrowful:

Why is there always a tendency to attempt to psychoanalyze my posting here into some pathological form of insecurity indicative of a personality disorder? Why can't I just enjoy the give-and-take of a good discussion on a topic that I happen to be somewhat familiar with?

I will state upfront that I do not know the Truth -- whatever that is -- and that I am here to learn from you all. That is why I never attempt to attack your characters or personal experiences, but only to try to apply the tools of reason and evidence to put things into context. You have been terribly hurt by psychiatry, and I am very sorry for what you all have gone through.

I happen to believe that when most of you read my posts, you are not hearing ME, but are hearing someone who is the compositive of every negative encounter you have had with psychiatry, and that you are projecting that fictional character upon me, resulting in gross distortions of what I am posting. That is a very human response to a difficult situation, but do not confuse your conception of me based on your past experiences with OTHER people with who I REALLY AM.

I take your negative experiences very seriously, but I refuse to dismiss logic and reason in the face of your extraordinarily difficult emotions. I have made mistakes and have accepted your criticisms when they were appropriate, but I utterly reject your ad hominem attacks on my integrity, character, and psychological well-being. I am very well adjusted, thank you very much. :)

Oh, and any time a drug company has involved itself with fraud and falsification of data that have resulted in the deaths of innocent people that could have been prevented, then they should be prosecuted in a criminal court. Just wanted to get that out in the open. Now, would a whore of the drug industry say that?

That is a bit of a double standard, no? For anyone who posts here who happens to agree with you, you demand no references or guarantees that their knowledge or experience is valid, but for anyone who disagrees with you, then you demand full disclosure of all personal information?

Sadly, the above is often the case. At least from what I've observed.

Kudos, though, to Stephany for stepping up and apologizing. That was classy, and I respect her for doing it.

NOTE: no there's no double standard here. i don't require anyone to show their 'credentials' in order to leave comments. people can pretty say whatever the heck they want, including you.

PHILIP DAWDY

Ikhllywd:

Just to clarify, my post was addressed to Stan specifically in response to his post here, and not in general to other commenters.

NOTE: no there's no double standard here. i don't require anyone to show their 'credentials' in order to leave comments. people can pretty say whatever the heck they want, including you.

PHILIP DAWDY

I didn't mean to imply that you had such a policy, Mr. Dawdy. I was referring to the behavior of some of the regular commenters here. If I offended you, I apologize.

"Would you also say any of the following to those who have been harmed by psychiatric drugs?"

""no, it was not me that set up the environment of the [drug companies]. That is the way [they] works ... You made a foolish decision [to take medications] and instead of taking responsibility, you want to change the rules [of how drug companies operate]. [Harmful side effects] is not new on the [drug companies]"

Huh? Are you serious? I will pass this comment off to you just being foolish again.

"The crux of your position is that I should have known better than to trust people on this forum to not post my personal information in the comments section. That argument could equally apply to those who have been harmed by psychiatric medications. Would you make the same argument for them?"

Again, huh? Just what kind of relationship do you have with the commenter's on this forum? Your a representative of a corrupt industry posting on a site where many have been harmed by that industry. How much trust would you realistically expect?

If one of your patients posted their information in a way in which they were exposed on the Internet and then complained to you about it, I have a pretty strong inkling you would be telling your patient they did something idiotic. You'd tell the patient to take responsibility and change their own behavior. Just because we are now talking about the doctor, doesn't change the rules. Take responsibility and change your behavior. If this causes you a great deal of anxiety, do what you would do for your patient, increase medication.

Yes, I would make the same arguments. Patients who have been harmed by psych drugs and use their real name are well aware of the ramifications. If they don't, they will learn fast enough. Do you honestly think the drug companies and many others who have visited this site haven't goggled Philip Dawdy and anyone else they have enough information on and use that information in their circles? Go to a pharma site, take a position opposite of someone, using your real name or some other identifying information, and see what happens. Again, you are not unique, you just cried about it. Take responsibility for your actions and change your behavior instead of trying to change every ones else's. That is exactly what you would tell you patients. I didn't make the rules, I learned to play within the rules though. No need to reply further, if you don't get it yet, you won't, so I won't waste anymore time with you on this.

Jane:

You write now: "Take responsibility for your actions and change your behavior instead of trying to change every ones else's."

I wrote earlier: "You make some fair points about my foolishness about using my real name here, and I will assume my share of responsibility for what happened. You are correct that should have expected that people would have googled my name to find our information about me."

Once again, I assume my share of responsibility in this matter. :)

Well Dguller, if that's your real name, I hope you've learned a valuable lesson concerning how insufficient paranoia makes you worse than Hitler when going about your innocent affairs. Until you learn to sit with your back to the wall in recognition that everyone is out to get you, and I mean everyone, you elude the peace of mind demonstrated by these paradigms of reason. Hmph, stupid psychiatrists. Clearly, to presume malfeasance lurking in community shows one has no need whatsoever of the so called "services" "offered" by your so-called "profession".

At the point of a gun.

Flawedplan:

Yes, perhaps I was insufficiently paranoid. :)

As a professional it appears dguller has no ability to let this issue go, nor does dguller appear to think that the very people she/he might/may be treating as patients are not unlike commenters here, who might be suffering. I feel this topic should be closed, and moved on from for the health of vulnerable people reading. This site appears to be a safe haven for many people suffering/or who have suffered a high cost of life and quality of it, a place to find solace with others, and to have a person claiming to be a professional not be able to let go of a topic that is (long gone and the posts removed of information)is disheartening.

The 'insufficient paranoia' comment in my opinion was tacky, and hurtful, most especially because it comes from a person who is a psychiatrist/or wants to be one.

thread closed