![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 19 of 19. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by fayeroe on March 21, 2003, at 8:30:42
I have an e.mail friend that I believe is faking "mental illness"....BUT how can I tell? One day he is clear as a bell and then he starts feinting around questions and demands solutions to problems that I don't even know about. He says hypnosis caused all of this???? Has anyone experienced this? I feel really bad at times and annoyed at others. I'm about to give up. He says he's been in therapy but he's lied before about things that I've caught him in. What to do? It is tiring me out. Pat
Posted by Dinah on March 21, 2003, at 9:03:27
In reply to Am I being DUPED?, posted by fayeroe on March 21, 2003, at 8:30:42
There is no way, really, to know.
But you shouldn't feel obligated to give more than you can give. It doesn't have to be a question of blame. And it doesn't have to involve anger towards him. Perhaps he can help it, perhaps he can't. You need to draw boundaries with what you are comfortable with, and stick to them. Even mental health professionals do this. Otherwise you'll burn out and won't be able to be his friend even if you want to.
Posted by fayeroe on March 21, 2003, at 9:13:24
In reply to Re: Am I being DUPED? » fayeroe , posted by Dinah on March 21, 2003, at 9:03:27
Thanks, Dinah. I did detach for about 18 months. And I'm not really mad at him. More puzzled than anything. I know from the past that he does manipulate and I believe that my plate is too full right now to get drawn in again. Thanks again. Pat
Posted by justyourlaugh on March 21, 2003, at 11:00:13
In reply to Re: Am I being DUPED? » Dinah, posted by fayeroe on March 21, 2003, at 9:13:24
fay(love that name),,
i say,,lie right back,,,,but not in a hurtful way or destructive way to call his bluff...
tell him your docs has you on 2000mg of seroquel or something else he has mentioned, 4 times a day...
or tell him the eye patch theory over on babble and how well its going for you?
peace
jyl..
Posted by fayeroe on March 21, 2003, at 11:14:02
In reply to Re: Am I being DUPED? » fayeroe , posted by justyourlaugh on March 21, 2003, at 11:00:13
> fay(love that name),,
> i say,,lie right back,,,,but not in a hurtful way or destructive way to call his bluff...
> tell him your docs has you on 2000mg of seroquel or something else he has mentioned, 4 times a day...
> or tell him the eye patch theory over on babble and how well its going for you?
> peace
> jyl..i needed that laugh! the eye patch theory is perfect....i've called his bluff before and caught him. but i really loved his story of hypnosis causing his memory loss and confusion??? that was new! i'm not familiar with the med that you mentioned so i think i'll think of something that i can talk about "intelligently"....sometimes laughing beats crying, you know? thank you! my dog's name is fayeroe. faye for planned parenthood and roe for roe vs. wade....this might start a new discussion?? eh?
>
Posted by NikkiT2 on March 21, 2003, at 11:29:14
In reply to Re: Am I being DUPED? » justyourlaugh, posted by fayeroe on March 21, 2003, at 11:14:02
Another web site I used has mentioned roe vs wade alot recently.. could you tell me what it was.. I know its connected with abortion laws.. thats all
Ta
Nikki
Posted by fayeroe on March 21, 2003, at 11:44:30
In reply to Re: Am I being DUPED? » fayeroe , posted by NikkiT2 on March 21, 2003, at 11:29:14
> Another web site I used has mentioned roe vs wade alot recently.. could you tell me what it was.. I know its connected with abortion laws.. thats all
>
> Ta
>
> NikkiNikki, glad to tell you. 30 years ago a lawsuit was brought, successfully, to insure that women would have the right to make their own choices concerning whether or not to have an abortion. with a very conservative President now, the law is under seige. so, in my way, i am trying to keep info out there and one way is when i explain fayeroe's name.....people ask why? what? when?
i feel in freedom of choice...concerning much more than abortion. if we lose one freedom, i'm afraid we'll lose more. thanks for the interest. pat
Posted by NikkiT2 on March 21, 2003, at 12:01:46
In reply to Re: Am I being DUPED?, posted by fayeroe on March 21, 2003, at 11:44:30
Thats, makes perfect sense. I'm in the UK, but as I use an American chat site, I read alot about the new law banning late term abortions.
I do believe its important to keep women's choices as free as possible.
Nikki
Posted by justyourlaugh on March 21, 2003, at 12:10:42
In reply to Re: Am I being DUPED? » fayeroe , posted by NikkiT2 on March 21, 2003, at 12:01:46
Posted by fayeroe on March 21, 2003, at 12:28:03
In reply to Re: Am I being DUPED? » fayeroe , posted by NikkiT2 on March 21, 2003, at 12:01:46
Posted by fayeroe on March 21, 2003, at 12:29:08
In reply to I don't know what you're referring to? (nm) » NikkiT2, posted by fayeroe on March 21, 2003, at 12:28:03
my subject line was for JYL....not Nikki...please explain, thanks, pat
Posted by fayeroe on March 21, 2003, at 12:51:44
In reply to Re: I don't know what you're referring to?, posted by fayeroe on March 21, 2003, at 12:29:08
sorry, JYL, I just turned on television...........and i do know what you're referring to! Pat
Posted by noa on March 22, 2003, at 0:00:45
In reply to Re: I don't know what you're referring to?, posted by fayeroe on March 21, 2003, at 12:51:44
Yep, seems to me the war dept. must have hired some out of work admen from Madison Ave--the "branding" and marketing-like names are just to gag over, aren't they?
Regardless of how any of us feel or think about the war itself, I feel it is hard to ignore the gag-factor of the marketing language being used. Let's look at two of these labels:
-"Operation Iraqi Freedom"--a little over the top? Presumptuous? perhaps a little maudlin and transparent for our postmodern sensibilities? I think so. Really does make me feel a bit nauseaous, honestly. And I mean that completely separately from the issue of the war itself. Really.
-"Shock and Awe"--definitely gonna be some scrambling to copyright this one for the movie version, don't ya think? Seems way too "titled" to be anything but a kind of trailer for war as "showtime". I can just imagine the disappointed reviews as the shock and awe doesn't pan out to be quite what it was built up to be.
Anyone care to add more of these marketing terms to this annotated list? Or comment on these?
Posted by BekkaH on March 22, 2003, at 1:07:14
In reply to Re: I don't know what you're referring to?, posted by noa on March 22, 2003, at 0:00:45
> Really does make me feel a bit nauseaous,
***********************************************
Nauseated.
Posted by Dinah on March 22, 2003, at 9:14:18
In reply to Re: I don't know what you're referring to?, posted by noa on March 22, 2003, at 0:00:45
Certainly there is some propaganda going on, probably directed as much towards the army of Iraq as towards us.
Is that such a bad thing? I'd rather have the army of Iraq surrender from words showing the power of the coalition army rather than demonstrations of that power.
Posted by noa on March 22, 2003, at 10:35:19
In reply to Re: Terms » noa, posted by Dinah on March 22, 2003, at 9:14:18
Yeah, I guess now I'm hearing reporters actually talking about the propaganda war, and not surprisingly, they are observing that this is all a big part of the war strategy. And I suppose something is working, whether it is the psyops leaflets, or the media coverage or the hollywood-esque labels, who knows, because many Iraqi troops are surrendering.
The "embedded" reporters is a shrewder strategy, although gives it away that control of the exposure is a key piece that they needed to control. As Daniel Shore said this morning, they are making it seem like there is total coverage, but there is still, of course, censorship, as one would expect there to be in a war. Don't mistake me, I'm not disputing the need for necessary censorship--just commenting on the shrewd PR strategie. And as for the less subtle strategies, like those hollywood-esque labels and "trailers", well, it just seems bizarre to me that they would be so maudlin and melodramatic in such an obvious way. Given the political climate leading up to the war, it just seems quite hollow to announce the war as "operation Iraqi Freedom", even moreso because the freedom of Iraqi's was not the main point of the US's arguments to the UN nations at all, so it adds to the sense that they were just trying to find justification for the war.
I guess not so bad for the armed forces to use the terms, but what I REALLY object to is not the army or administrations's use of propaganda terms, it is the MEDIA's lining up and adopting the terminology without comment, and even creating their own "branding" terms to dramatize the war coverage. You'd think the media would at least TRY to LOOK more objective! It is like they just gave up on that a long time ago! I think news media sees itself more as entertainment now than it used to.
As I said earlier, I am conflicted about the war. I know for sure that I feel that Bush did not convince me, though I can't say I'm unconvinced either. I wonder if someone else might have done better in convincing me. The most convincing thing I've heard so far is an interview I heard this morning with two Iraqi Americans who support the war. I have been of the feeling that I don't like how the foreign policy leading up to this was handled, but at a certain point, it seemed like it would be hard to back down because of the build up in antagonism that had occurred. OTOH, anytime we go to drop bombs on a city where innocent people could and probably will be killed and maimed, I am extremely troubled.
I don't feel I followed the details sufficiently to judge the arguments for war--or what the risks were of not going to war. I heard Bush's and Powell's speeches, but never felt entirely convinced. Otoh, I don't feel I am convinced that not doing war is a good risk either.
As I said earlier, I know how I FEEL. War scares me, saddens me, troubles me. Whether this is a necessary war? I don't know.
This is very "wimpy" of me, I know, which is why I would make a very bad executive, whether in a corporation or in government!
Part of my skepticism comes, in part from just not being able to trust George W. In addition to what I felt about him prior to this, there is something coming across in all of this that seems too personal. I mean, I was thinking that this story of father and son presidents vs. villain despot would make a great opera someday. Great characters, great father-son emotional conflicts, son redeeming all past disappointments by winning back his father's honor, lots of side stories for choruses of security council members, war protesters.....
OTOH, I know that this is just my impression, and I don't have all the facts one way or the other. I feel like I should have kept myself better informed, but it has all felt so overwhelming for me, and anxiety provoking, so I tended to stick to the fluffy parts of the newspaper, local news, etc., and only keeping superficially informed of the war info.
I only hope and pray this is over soon, with as little human pain as possible, and that a lasting peace will follow.
Posted by Dinah on March 22, 2003, at 10:40:14
In reply to Re: Terms, posted by noa on March 22, 2003, at 10:35:19
>
> I only hope and pray this is over soon, with as little human pain as possible, and that a lasting peace will follow.I think that is a hope that is shared by all.
By the way, you're right about the embedding of reporters. I have been amused/appalled at the attitude of the reporters in these positions. They sound like giddy schoolgirls. I'm waiting any minute to hear them say "Man, this is so coooool", because they've been coming pretty close to doing that.
The military is showing far more of the gravitas appropriate to the situation than the reporters are.
Posted by NikkiT2 on March 22, 2003, at 12:37:51
In reply to Re: Terms, posted by Dinah on March 22, 2003, at 10:40:14
I've been kind of glued to the coverage.. gone slightly manic over it all.. the need to stay constantly informed..
Anyway, I digress. I've been watching mainly BBC news, which is a UK one. (BBC News 24 is the news channel they have on cable tv). The coverage is very dry, the reporters very serious - though it has been interesting the listen to the reports from within Bagdad which are strictly controlled by Iraq.
But, out of interest, and having the wonders of cable TV, I switched to CNN. Wow, what a difference. Like someone mentioned, the American reporters seemed to almost be having fun. The "WOW, look at that one" kind of line. It felt so much more Hollywood to me (though American accents could have added to that for me). An American friend told me Fox news was even worse.
Alot of people in the US I know have got BBC News on their cable, and are reccomending that to alot of people now. Its just.. less sensationalised.Nikki
Posted by wendy b. on March 23, 2003, at 0:56:09
In reply to US Vs UK Coverage, posted by NikkiT2 on March 22, 2003, at 12:37:51
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Social | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.