|  |
|
| |
By: Da Sissop
Date: 3/28/01 4:45:58 PM
# Replies: 203
So I'm walking from my apartment complex to the Chevron convenience store at the corner of Shepherd and Westheimer. I'm on a quest to buy lottery tickets and beer. As I'm cutting through the 10 square feet of greenery between Churrasco's and the bus stop, a stringy-haired young gentleman wearing a plastic bag emerges and asks if I can spare a quarter. As it so happens, I most certainly can, however I don't think it would be such a good idea to ask if he could maybe break a twenty, so I check my pockets to see if I do, in fact, have an actual physical quarter on my person, and I do not. I shrug, and am about to say, "No, but I probably can on my way back in a couple of minutes," but before I can say a word, the gentleman apparently reads from my body language that I am about to reply in the negative, and he scowls and says something like (paraphrasing from memory here), "Jesus, I can't get shit anymore, everyone's such an asshole!"
Now, I'm certainly no bum, but even *I* know, that's just simply bad bumming.
Response #1
By: Homer The Brave
Date: 3/29/01 2:17:37 AM
Every decent pan-handler knows that you don't ask for a quarter. You ask for thirty-seven cents. Not because of inflation, but because if you ask for $.37, then it sounds like you know exactly how much you need.
Response #2
By: Fung Swazy
Date: 3/29/01 7:40:11 PM
I am always wondering where they get the really good Majic Markers - you know the kind that lets you leave a solid black line. The fact that every sign is so easy to read from far away is just amazing!
Response #3
By: sooz
Date: 3/30/01 1:35:19 PM
I've seen bums walk up to the counter of a store and ask to borrow a Sharpie or Magic Marker, while holding a cardboard box panel.
Response #4
By: Da Sissop
Date: 3/31/01 6:14:39 AM
You would think some socially responsible box maker could spend the extra fraction of a cent and pre-print "Will Work For Food" in professional-looking type on the insides of all boxes.
Response #5
By: Roxanne
Date: 4/1/01 7:27:16 PM
If they were a socially responsible box-maker, wouldn't they just offer these people a job?
Oh wait, these guys don't really want to work for food. They'd rather bum for beer money.
Response #6
By: sooz
Date: 4/1/01 8:14:48 PM
Aw, don't lump everyone together. It's called prejudice.
Response #7
By: Homer The Brave
Date: 4/2/01 1:05:42 AM
When it comes right down to it, isn't working generally the same as bumming for beer money? You humiliate yourself for others so that they'll give you money and you can afford the things you want.
(Hows *that* for lumping everyone together?)
Response #8
By: sooz
Date: 4/2/01 11:29:35 AM
I work all day long and don't feel a bit humiliated. Actually, I feel darned good about it. I'm participating in making people's medical information available to them and other physicians, and I like that. No one's ever made me feel humiliated about it.
If I were only doing this type of work to get "money and afford the things I want," I'd find another line of work.
Response #9
By: Homer The Brave
Date: 4/2/01 4:59:49 PM
I *did* say 'generally,' didn't I?
Response #10
By: Da Sissop
Date: 4/2/01 5:06:37 PM
I do this job because I'm an anti-people-person. Plus, I can only come to orgasm when there is a ridiculous and impossible deadline hanging over me.
Response #11
By: Capt. Spastic
Date: 4/3/01 6:26:59 AM
Homer:
"When it comes right down to it, isn't working generally the same as bumming for beer money? You humiliate yourself for others so that they'll give you money and you can afford the things you want.
(Hows *that* for lumping everyone together?)"
Loved it!
Response #12
By: Roxanne
Date: 4/5/01 5:30:46 AM
*I* didn't lump anyone together. The folks with the signs lump themselves together.
If you are going to stand on a street corner and ask for money, at least sell papers or flowers. Just asking for money is begging. And being rude to people when they don't give it to you (the original posting topic) is even worse.
I guess now, I'm going to get flamed by the Bum Anti-Defamation League.
:)
Response #13
By: Da Sissop
Date: 4/5/01 9:48:05 AM
Please... it's not politically correct to call them "bums" any more... nowadays I think they prefer to be called "Moochers."
Response #14
By: Homer The Brave
Date: 4/5/01 4:40:21 PM
No, the correct term is 'you in 20 years if you don't clean your room and eat your vegetables.'
Response #15
By: sooz
Date: 4/6/01 7:45:42 AM
Homer, could I please get you to spend a weekend with my teenage son, quoting such things?
Response #16
By: Homer The Brave
Date: 4/6/01 5:22:57 PM
Back when I learned how to cook vegetables, I realized why I never ate them as a child: My mom didn't know how to cook them. I mean, she did OK, as long as you like your frozen vegetables boiled for an hour and a half, but if I'd had the presence of mind to say, "Mom, why don't you just steam them?" I'd be a different person today.
(I never did learn to clean my room, however, so I'm halfway down the road to panhandling.)
Response #17
By: Da Sissop
Date: 4/6/01 8:46:55 PM
Probably wouldn't have helped. See, I remember sitting at the kitchen table for, like, HOURS after the family dinner had concluded because I hadn't eaten my broccoli, because, well, broccoli made me gag. Seriously, if I had eaten the stuff, I would have puked. I was doing my family a FAVOR, and THIS was the thanks I got... sheesh...
10 or 15 years later, I discovered I loved broccoli.
All I can figure is that my tastebuds underwent some sort of chemical change over the years. No doubt in my mind the stuff tasted awful as a kid, but now even the frozen stuff boiled for an hour and a half is exquisite, assuming you've got some butter or at least some squeeze parkay.
Response #18
By: sooz
Date: 4/7/01 10:53:12 AM
Seriously, I read an article a couple of weeks ago in a medical journal that says your tastebuds DO change, and during puberty, they change darned often... we're talkin' once a month or so, there's a complete turnover of the tastebud staff that were once employed by your mouth.
This explains our changing preferences, and especially explains why, last week, Jimmy thought Richie's enchiladas were heaven sent, but this week they're gross. Last month he wouldn't touch a brussell sprout, and this week he ate 'em all. (shrug)
Response #19
By: Da Sissop
Date: 4/8/01 9:46:46 AM
Ahyes, I remember losing my first set of baby tastebuds. My parents made me sleep with them under my pillow, and by the morning, the ANT FAIRY had paid a visit!
Response #20
By: Da Sissop
Date: 4/30/01 10:14:07 AM
Today I was privvy to some absolutely *spectacular* bumming. It was lunchtime, and I was eating my lunch in the food court of the Park Shops mall in glorious downtown Houston. A gentleman approaches my table, very politely apologizing for intruding. He's holding a plastic bag with some prescription bottles in it. He doesn't ask me for any specific amount of money, he simply wants help in getting "a meal" so he can take his medication.
That was worth *at least* two bucks.
Response #21
By: Capt. Spastic
Date: 4/30/01 6:13:52 PM
Should have told him, "...but they kick in better on an empty stomach"
Response #22
By: sooz
Date: 5/1/01 6:22:08 AM
Like Fang, I give the guy big points for creativity. I'd have tossed in a couple bucks for originality, indeed.
Response #23
By: Gowan McGland
Date: 5/1/01 9:39:08 AM
I dunno.
Since you were already IN the food court, I would have just bought him a meal. Screw the rest of that. If he wants a meal, I'll buy. If he wants a beer, let him actually ask for it.
Response #24
By: Roxanne
Date: 5/1/01 1:28:28 PM
I want a beer!
Response #25
By: sooz
Date: 5/2/01 12:47:03 PM
Make that two beers, please. I'll sit by Roxy.
Response #26
By: Da Sissop
Date: 5/2/01 2:43:37 PM
Ale House. Tonight. 5:30 to 6:00 PM. Be there.
Response #27
By: Gowan McGland
Date: 5/2/01 10:41:45 PM
Oops.
Response #28
By: Roxanne
Date: 5/6/01 11:35:31 AM
I guess I need to make a sign "Ale House or Bust" and pan-handle along the streets of Huntsville (Alabama) to raise air-fare money.
Or all of you could start a benefit drive for me...
Response #29
By: sooz
Date: 5/7/01 6:32:46 AM
I know a buncha bands that would play at the benefit concert, as long as they could sell CDs.
Response #30
By: rorschach
Date: 6/2/01 3:56:13 PM
I agree with Gowan, Buy the guy whatever he wants to eat (assuming it isn't lobster or a porterhouse (like you'd find THAT at the food court...)) the guy sounds pretty sincere, he may very well have needed food before taking his drugs, many drugs will really fuck you up if you don't take em with food. at least he wasn't standing on a street corner with a sign.
by and large i don't think we would have nearly the panhandling and public urination/defecation, and general disturbing behavior problems if there was some form of long term government subsidized mental health program for these people to be commited to. most of them out there are schiz's that can't hold a job because thier brain is only firing on three cylinders, 20 years ago these people would have lived out thier days in state run mental hospitals, but since the government wont pay to do that anymore they had to let them loose to wander the streets and piss on our storefronts, and expose themselves to our kids....
Response #31
By: sooz
Date: 6/2/01 10:33:18 PM
I'm glad you're back around, Ror*. I was tired of arguing with Homer all the time. :-)
The government shouldn't take care of anyone, mentally ill or otherwise. The government isn't there to be a babysitter or a nanny. There's private charitable organizations that can (and do) do a much better job.
Response #32
By: The Professor
Date: 6/4/01 8:48:54 AM
I usually agree with Sooz and normally cringe whenever I hear 'the government should pay for...' (because that means I, a taxpayer, am actually paying for it) but there are some things that the government needs to do in order to protect the citizenry. Defending the borders, locking up the criminals, hospitalizing the mentally ill where private insurance doesn't cover.
Response #33
By: rorschach
Date: 6/4/01 10:39:49 AM
Same here, I catagorically am opposed to socialism in most every form but in this instance I do not see it as socialized medicine so much as a public safety issue.
Response #34
By: sooz
Date: 6/4/01 11:23:59 AM
Thanks for the vote, Prof! :-)
So you want to trust the government to take care of our mentally ill, because they've done so well in other realms, right? The mentally ill are PEOPLE, not cattle to be herded around.
Who gets to draw the line on "safety" issues? If I'm depressed and need Prozac, should the gov't be able to lock me away for the safety of myself and others?
Yikes.
Response #35
By: Homer The Brave
Date: 6/4/01 12:42:39 PM
Who gets to draw the line? Well, I know this may come as a shock, but that'd be *you,* as a voter and constituent. You get to set the tone, and you're the one they have to answer to.
Response #36
By: rorschach
Date: 6/4/01 2:09:13 PM
if you are suicidal or homocidal, and you either can't or won't take your medication, assuming that medication works for you anyway, (well over 60% of schitz's either do not respond at all or only partially respond to medication, only about a third are "cured" (actually only long term managed) with drug therapy) then yes, you need to be committed for either your own or the public's safety. Has the government done a good job on other things? not really, but it is obvious that the private sector can't do this, there is no profit in it, and charities's funding is spotty, and neither the private nor the charity sector can FORCE anyone who may not WANT to be helped to seek it, the government CAN after due process of law. (I.E. a competency hearing) If you can think of a way to FORCE these people to get treatment without breaking the law and not have the government do it, hey, I'm all ears! but the sad truth is, a good many of these people do not WANT treatment. If you give them thier medication in an out-patient setting, most sell the drugs on the street in order to self-medicate with crack or heroin and nobody but the drug dealers get anything out of the transaction. the only way to make sure they are medicated with the the real thing is an in-patient facility and that means commitment because these people are not only nutz, they are junkies too, and they know they won't be able to get crack or horse on the inside nearly as easily.
Response #37
By: sooz
Date: 6/4/01 3:26:53 PM
I have a friend that struggles with depression. He sometimes has suicidal thoughts. You're saying that, for his "protection", you want him locked up? How would that give him a better life?
And that's great news, Homer, that I'll be able to decide every case, on a one-at-a-time-basis, about people's personal mental health issues, because I'll be able to vote on them. (/sarcasm)
Response #38
By: rorschach
Date: 6/5/01 10:37:27 AM
Well sooz, I turn this around and ask you the same thing. is he willing and able to medicate himself on an outpatient basis? if not then his "life" right now can't be all that great if he is wanting to off himself. how could being committed to a low security mental health facility be worse?
Being a low security facility he would have more or less the run of the place, he just couldn't leave except under supervision (sort of like court ordered drug rehab, just longer term). He would be medicated to control his depression and would recieve counseling and behavioral therapy to help him learn to take care of himself. if he then showed the staff that he was willing and able to care for himself on the outside he could be put in a half-way house setting where he could go to work during the day, and thereby ease him back into society.
If he could not show that he can take care of himself then at least he won't be on the street, starving, freezing in the winter, self-medicating with drugs and alchohol and being a danger to himself and society.
Bottom line is that the best circumstance would be a pill he could take once and it would cure him for all time, but that is not realistic. Mental problems are long term problems and they often require long term solutions. Many are also self-reinforcing such that they make it difficult for the person to recognise he is ill or make it hard for that person to take care of himself even if he IS aware that he is ill.
So, yes, if your friend is suicidal and you aren't doing everything you can to get him help, up to and including having him committed for his own good, then if he does manage to off himself, you will have to answer to your own consience.
Response #39
By: sooz
Date: 6/5/01 12:10:46 PM
Ror* says: Well sooz, I turn this around and ask you the same thing. is he willing and able to medicate himself on an outpatient basis? if not then his "life" right now can't be all that great if he is wanting to off himself. how could being committed to a low security mental health facility be worse?
This is why these comments startle me. People who don't know him, and gazillions like him, would think the same thing as you, just from reading a file.
This guy (we'll call him Bob), has a college degree, works about 60 hours a week in his field of expertiece, makes about a good living, owns a house and is a functioning member of society. He's tried various medications on an outpatient basis, and none have helped. He no longer trusts doctors, psychologists, etc. He's really quite content where he is, in his own world. That should be his choice, not ours, shoudln't it? Why "help" someone that doesn't want it, and is functioning, without harming anyone? You want medication FORCED on people by the government? That's really, really scary when you think about it.
ROr* finishes with: So, yes, if your friend is suicidal and you aren't doing everything you can to get him help, up to and including having him committed for his own good, then if he does manage to off himself, you will have to answer to your own consience.
I can't commit him against his will. I can't (and wouldn't) prove he has certain thoughts, which he's only confided to a few people. Really, do you think Bob would be better off being stared at in a little room 24 hours a day? It would seem that living in his own private hell is better than that. Hell, even "offing" himself would be better than that. Having him committed wouldn't be for his own good, Ror*. That would kill him, from the inside out.
I care deeply for this friend. His best therapy is probably that I (and people like me) actually listen to him without reacting like you do. I hope we never live in a society that mandates that people like him be shuffled off to be government-medicated. Drugs aren't necessarily the answer, ya know?
Response #40
By: sooz
Date: 6/6/01 9:20:32 AM
I was so disturbed by this thread, Bob and I talked about it last night. If his work slows down in the next couple of days, he may log on here.
Response #41
By: rorschach
Date: 6/6/01 9:40:54 AM
sooz, I still have a hard time understanding how a person who is suicidal can have a decent life, one that he enjoys, and is content with. the two situations are mutually exclusive in my mind. If his life is so great why does he want to end it all? the only possible instance that fits is a bipolar person who is manic one minute and depressed the next. and if that is the case he is doubly in danger because people who are manic do not want to do anything to lessen the mania (which is what lithium and other drugs do... they even the highs and lows out to a more moderate level) because it FEELS GOOD when they are manic, so they stop taking the drugs, which take a while to work, assuming the drugs help at all to begin with. they also tend to suffer a lack of self control and good judgement when they are manic, they often do things that are dangerous because they feel invincible. and by the way, it would probably be a real strain on your friendship, but you *CAN* petition the court to have him committed. you do not have to be next of kin to do this.
I want you to understand I am not talking about a 10 foot square padded room with paper clothes, at least not long term (it may require this for the short term while he is severely suicidal.) I'm talking about something a bit more humanitarian than that. something more approximating a drug rehab center or a modern mental health facility, not the image everyone has from "one flew over the cookoo's nest".
FYI
That movie was filmed at Mississippi's State Mental Hospital at Whitfield. My sister worked there just a couple years ago in the maximum security section, at least until she was attacked by an inmate and beaten senseless, then she quit. And yes, the maximum security section, where murderers and rapists are incarcerated is much more jail-like. But there are much more relaxed sections for those people who are not as violent or dangerous to themselves or others.
Response #42
By: sooz
Date: 6/6/01 11:04:11 AM
I know you mean well, Ror*, and we both have people's best interests in mind. We just think it should happen in different ways, I guess. I think people should have a choice in their own health/mental health care.
Probably, the very valid issues you bring up would be better addressed by Bob himself. He's out of town on business today, but as of last night, he seemed interested in checking out the Nunnery. He's intelligent, funny, and can't spell worth a damn, so he'd fit right in, I'm thinkin'.
Response #43
By: rorschach
Date: 6/6/01 7:16:45 PM
sooz, I look foreward to posting with him, if nothing else, this might be a place to him to let it all hang out among friends, even if we do tend to polarize on issues a bit......
my basic philosophy is that you have the right to do anything you like as long as it doesn't interfere with the rights of others to do the same. However, when that right interferes with other's rights (like a depressed person going to his place of employment and killing himself and his love interest three cubicles down because she didn't want to go out with him) well thats when the government has to step in to prevent that sort of thing. Bob may only think about killing himself, but many others take others with them. In my mind, suicide is only applicable in terminally ill people seeking to avoid the ravages of the disease.
Response #44
By: sooz
Date: 6/6/01 9:59:37 PM
Bob works from his home. He's a contract guy. I could be wrong, but I don't believe he's homicidal.
Response #45
By: bob
Date: 6/7/01 9:08:59 AM
hi everyone, i am "bob", i am a psychotic, and i really don't like the idea of being locked away for absolutely no reason at all. maybe it is because i am crazy, but i thought i had just as much of a right to walk the streets as everyone else, as i have not be convicted of any crimes.
but, this ought to be fun, it sure was interesting to read some of the stereotypes associated with me.
Response #46
By: sooz
Date: 6/7/01 9:16:42 AM
Especially the part about peeing on storefronts and exposing yourself to children. :-)
Response #47
By: rorschach
Date: 6/7/01 9:43:12 AM
Bob, much of this post has been about generalities, sooz wants to focus on the one example she has to point to, which is you. However she knows the specifics better than I (and I am sure you know them better that either of us...) so it is difficult to both speak to generalities and to specific instances in the same breath, especially when you don't know the specifics anyway. Ok, I can see her reason to do this. It's the only specific situation she knows well enough about to discuss.
My logic goes like this, if you are suicidal, you obviously aren't real happy with your life, you are in danger of taking your life, so anything done to make you not want to take your life has to be better than the status quo. Not all suicidal people constrain thier need to kill to themselves, mothers and fathers kill thier kids and/or thier spouces, workers kill thier bosses/co-workers. And it is impossible to tell which ones will limit thier acts to themselves and those who will not because circumstances change and mentally ill people, by definition are unstable and unpredictable. Mental illness covers a wide gamut of mental defects, everything from bipolar, to psychosis, to schitzophrenia, paranoia, you name it. and they all have differing effects on a given person's danger to himself and others. that is the point of the competency hearing. to sort out who is a danger to themselves and others and who is not.
If you want to discuss your specifics I'm listening. but I will need to hear the specifics before I can rationally discuss them.
Response #48
By: sooz
Date: 6/7/01 11:25:31 AM
Why do you want specifics, Ror*? You blanketly stated earlier that the gov't. should medicate and institutionalize people like Bob, specifics be damned.
Response #49
By: Capt. Spastic
Date: 6/7/01 9:34:12 PM
"I guess. I think people should have a choice in their own health/mental health care."
Huh?
Doesn't that almost fall into the category of an oxy-moron?
A person that's mentally healthy enough to MAKE that kind of decision, wouldn't NEED mental health care would they?
BTW, Hi bob. Welcome! Please find your way back often. Let me make a disclaimer right up front. Please don't take me too seriously, and don't get offended. I mean no malice, but somehow, I always manage to pisee people off. Ask sooz. :)
"Why do you want specifics, Ror*? You blanketly stated earlier that the gov't. should medicate and institutionalize people like Bob, specifics be damned."
Ok...maybe I'm not the ONLY one that pisses sooz off.
he-he.
Response #50
By: bob
Date: 6/8/01 8:34:14 AM
ok, let me first start by saying that i love good logical arguements. so, this is right up my alley, and i am not easily offended. i am a strong believer in freedom, which includes freedom of thought and speech.
in response to ror, the main difficulty i have with many of you arguements is the generalities that you speak of affect a very small portion of the population. i have met many people afflicted with many itmes in my day, and they have all been capable of carrying on normal lives, well normal being a relative word, and have been able to work and care for themselves. not all of us have decided to stick with medical treatment, but we all function. it is also hard to generalize such a varient group of people, lumping people who change by the minute into catagories is often hard. for instance, personally i am somewhere in between bipolar and unipolar, so i say i am one-and-a-half polar.
in addition, you are right about me, i am not happy. i can't actually remember what true happyness feels like. however, i have gone into the shrinks and tried there route, and i didn't like it. over the last 14 yaers, more than half my life, i have learned to cope with this and how to survive. the things that help me the most are the people that i know, the accomplishemnt i get at work, and just being able to help people. i wouldn't be able to do that in a ward, unless you count them giving me a lollipop when i remember to take their drugs.
i hope i am not breaking any rules by making this too long, but ihave a lto to respond to.
Response #51
By: rorschach
Date: 6/8/01 9:50:13 AM
hehe... length is my trademark so to speak. I hardly ever post one liners, so prattle on my man! I'm right beside you. and rules? hell there aren't any to speak of here....just don't go posting pedophilia or anything and I think we're good to go. and by the way Bob, this post is suffering from what we call "topic shear", it isn't just drifting off topic, it is making sharp 90 degree turns.... not an uncommon occurrance around here, but just so you know the terminology.
sooz, I invite you to take a deep breath, have a beer if it helps, and reread my post. I thought I was pretty clear that I was speaking in generaities and that I expected a competency hearing to sort out the details. OBVIOUSLY every instance is different, you'd have to be a complete moron to think that every instance was the same.
And Bob, I know there are alot of people who can deal with thier situation without resorting to activity that is dangerous to themselves or others. but not all of those individuals are capable of making informed decisions about thier welfare either. that is the purpose of the system for involuntary commitments. to decide if the person is oriented, aware and capable of making valid decisions for thier own welfare.
the whole point of the original post was that in the 70's the rules for mental illnesses changed, and alot of people that were originally in mental facilities were abruptly kicked out and were forced to live on the street where they can be found to this day. while many of those on the streets are mentally sound but lazy, and many are there due to financial hardship of one form or fashion, others are there because of the mental inability to care for themselves in one form or fashion (holding a job, etc.).
Response #52
By: Homer The Brave
Date: 6/8/01 11:57:49 AM
...and your solution to their problems is to lock them all up in a ward somewhere so that you don't have to think about them?
Response #53
By: sooz
Date: 6/8/01 12:15:34 PM
Some days, I want to hug and kiss Homer. Either that, or buy him a nice latte.
There's so much more I want to say, but Bob does a better job of defending Bob than I do, so I'll stay out of it.
Response #54
By: Ralf
Date: 6/9/01 6:43:54 AM
Ralf here. Hi bob! Nice to meetcha.
I've no answers, but I can offer another case to study.
I've had a *lot* of experience with immediate family members who were institutionalized against their will "for their own good". For instance, my mom spent six years off-and-on in Texas Department of Health hospitals in Austin, Houston, and Pasadena.
It only takes the word of a police officer to have somebody locked up for observation, and once in, they can be held for a longer time to "protect themselves and the public". These decisions are made by well-meaning but severely overworked and underpaid professionals. Of course, if you have family members willing to spring you it's not a problem -- it's not incarceration as such. But in my mom's case nobody wanted her, so in she stayed. On the tax-payer's nickel.
She'd be medicated, observed, medicated and observed for a few months, then released with a pocket of meds and the stuff she came in with. A few months later she'd be back.
A few times my sister helped her get a job & an apartment, and those times mom would be good for a year or more. Then one day she'd be low on money and have to decide between food or refilling her prescription, and back into the system she'd go.
Her ailment? Severe manic depression, coupled with mild schizophrenia. (I know, I know -- *all* bipolars used to be diagnosed that way up until about 1977 or so, but she really is schizo. Not quite multiple personalities, but close.)
She's not violent. She just can't take care of herself when she's off her meds. Now she lives in a state hospital in Pasadena, and is making everyone's life around her a living hell. No, she is not a nice person, even when medicated.
So I am really torn by this argument. It's easy to see where the government could abuse its authority and lock my ass up because I have the *potential* to be like my mother, and it'd be for my own good. In fact, I have been diagnosed as mildly bipolar, but nowhere near like my mom. I don't even need drugs to control it, just self-awareness. But if I ever have a REALLY bad day and make some off-color comment about buying an Uzi at a pawn shop and "taking care business", welllll... it's not too hard to imagine somebody with knowledge of my mom to make a well-meaning intervention and call the state. For my own good, of course. And then the burden would be on MY shoulders to prove my sanity.
On the other hand, were TDH not around, who knows what would've happened to mom? In a twisted way, I'm glad Big Brother was there to take care of her when she needed it.
So there you go, real world case #2. Clear as mud.
Response #55
By: sooz
Date: 6/9/01 7:45:57 AM
Oh, hell, I said I'd stay out of it, but I can't.
Thanks for telling us about your mom, Ralf. I wish I had some wonderful, comfoting words to say here, but they escape me. Just... thanks for sharing that with us. I had no idea.
Response #56
By: bob
Date: 6/9/01 8:47:45 AM
ror: ok, first of all the cometency hearings and stuff you are now talking about is already in place. i had a conversation with a girl yesterday who was trying to have her brother commited. i have to admit, at first i was tempted to walk away from her, but when she started talking about the situation, i was in agreement. we need systems in place to protect people, but you seemed to have changed your postition from "everyone" to "a few, of them".
a second point: my fear with what you are saying is where this country has come from in the mental health perspective. back in the day, possibly up until the mass exedus in the 70's, people were involuntarily placed in wards, medicated, and possibly driven crazy. some people were in no doubt a danger to society and needed to be there, but a lot of people were placed there wrongly, and with improper treatment, ended up worse. i am afraid of the salem witch trials or the red scare coming back and biting me in the ass. i don' think that i made this point clearly, but i tried. hahahaha
ralf: sorry to hear about your situation. just to clarify, i think that there should be help for people that need it. i was offering a defense against ror*'s statements to the effect of "anyone who is sucidal should be locked away". there is no doubt that many people need help from the governent, and i am not advocating taking that away.
Response #57
By: Roxanne
Date: 6/9/01 12:01:19 PM
I wish I could believe that the government's "help" was really any good. I, too, have very personal experience with the guvmint mental health system and it leaves much to be desired.
There is no sweeping general solution to be made for dealing with mental illness in our society. Every case is highly individual. What works or worked for one will *not* work for the other in most of the cases. And that's where the government has a problem in handling it. The government does better at dealing with things where one size fits all. Like the post office...34 cents mails a letter and it fits most of the needs. But when you start getting the government involved in more complicated transactions, it just can't handle it.
Response #58
By: sooz
Date: 6/9/01 2:07:33 PM
Actually, the U.S. Post Office is a private business, subcontracted by the gov't. Most people don't realize that.
Response #59
By: Capt. Spastic
Date: 6/9/01 6:59:35 PM
Homey:
"...and your solution to their problems is to lock them all up in a ward somewhere so that you don't have to think about them?"
Who were you talking to Homer?
Mental illness folks, is a VERY serious condition. Now I am not really advocating that open, "wholesale" abilty to lock up the mentally ill by anyone wanting to avange a wrong against someone (like the family court system is now), but I am saying that the situation that bob and other's have mentioned about the way things changed in the `70s is indeed true. If someone is mentally ill, and has a really difficult time functioning in society to the point of being able to take care of themselves, they should not be delegated to a revolving door system where they are brought into the hospital, then kicked out 6-8-10-12 months later. Many times, these people are ousted from the hospital, while they are BEGGING not to be turned out.
Response #60
By: Ralf
Date: 6/10/01 12:48:02 PM
Small clarification. I wasn't advocating one position or the other; simply stating what happened to my family as some data to ponder. I myself am conflicted, as I hope I conveyed in my post.
If there was any message in my message, it should've been: "None of this is easy; there are no quick fixes."
Bob: My [non-denominational] prayers are with you. Stick around this world for awhile more, since you *just never know* what might happen. You might even meet some interesting people who care about you and will make a difference. It's happened before! :-)
Response #61
By: Capt. Spastic
Date: 6/10/01 8:33:32 PM
I agree Ralf. There are no easy answers. Anyone in the position you described couldn't help but be conflicted. Mental Illness sucks, plain andd simple. Even with the great strides that have been made in the past 40 years, we still haven't really even scratched the surface in understanding the human mind.
Response #62
By: bob
Date: 6/11/01 9:02:12 AM
"mainc depression is a frustrating mess", jimi hendrix
i knew what you meant ralf, i think that we are on the same page here. as far as the interesting people who care about me...well, we will see. i am not sure what i want right now, it is kind of a onfusing time in that department.
Response #63
By: rorschach
Date: 6/12/01 10:00:19 AM
tried to respond to this yesterday but the internet connection cratered before I hit submit so lemme see if this works this time:
Bob, I really don't see where I may have given anyone the idea that I may have shifted positions. I haven't. I may not have made my point clear, but my intent never wavered.
Is the mental health feild as advanced as the medical feild was in the 1920's? maybe just barely. but like the changes that occured between the 1920's and the 2000's in the medical feild, the mental health feild is starting to turn the corner and enter a new phase. there is good evidence that the chemical and biological basis for mental disease may be completely understood in the not too distant future, perhaps in as few as a couple decades or less. whereas in the 1970's mental institutions were basically warehouses for the mentally infirm, today there are better treatment options. are there cures? only in limited cases, but there are cures, or at least long term treatments. this is something that was lacking in earlier times.
Is the power of the government to commit someone an awsome and terrible power? yes, it can be. does that mean it should never be used? no, not at all. sometimes the extreme response is the appropriate one, but it has to be carefully measured against other options before it is used. Like Ralf said. was the commitmient of his mother the right thing to do? It IS a hard question to answer. is she better off now than she would have been? that is the question that has to be answered, it will require people to polish up thier crystal ball and look into the future to see. Will mistakes be made? hell yes, but that is the nature of judgements, they can be wrong. I feel that more good than bad judgements are made. Ralf's mom may hate her incarceration, but she is at least lucid enough to know she is incarcerated and why. From the outside looking in, Ralf's mom may be in the best place for her, but I would bet it is STILL a hard thing for Ralf and his sister to contemplate on an emotional level.
I consider mental health science today to be on par with where cancer research was in the late 70's or early 80's. some cancers were cured in the 70's but not many. in the 80's more were treatable. in the 90's there were whole classes of cancers that were completely treatable when found early enough. perhaps by 2010 or 2020, there will only be a few cancers that are real matters of concern. I expect much of the research going on in the genetics and chemistry of mental function to pay big dividends in the not too distant future.
Bob, you may distrust doctors, and given thier previous track record I can see why you might, but I wouldn't give up on them just yet. They are starting to make the change from witch doctor to real doctor.
Response #64
By: Da Sissop
Date: 6/12/01 3:20:49 PM
Hi Bob!
(everyone takes a drink)
Umm, I don't have anything to add, but I am silently reading intently. Just wanted to say hi though.
Response #65
By: Capt. Spastic
Date: 6/12/01 7:52:52 PM
(takes a drink)
I didn't have anything to add either, but I did want to take a drink.
Response #66
By: sooz
Date: 6/12/01 8:34:40 PM
I sometimes drink with Bob.
Response #67
By: bob
Date: 6/12/01 8:41:43 PM
ror: i guess the part that seems to be wavering is that originally you seemed to propose that "anyone who is suicidal/homicidal" ought to be incarcerated and medicated. whereas, lately it seems to have just been the extreme cases.
as far as where the health field is headed, i have little doubt that the science is advancing; unfortunately, it seems that many docotrs are taking to medicating rather than working. "you feel bad? try this and call me in a couple of weeks" that may be all they are capable of right now, but i must say that i am not in an emotional state right now where i need to deal with the frustrations of showing up to the office, letting the dr. scribble a perscription, send my life into a tempest while the drugs take effect, then see if it is helping. six to eight weeks later finding out if they are working, and more than likely, having to try something else.
the first time i saw a dr. was about 5 years ago now. just to point out that i was not involved with them in the 70's. right now i am just trying to remember how to survive through this episode that i am in right now. i think that i have done pretty well learning to deal with myself over the last 15 years of my life.
Response #68
By: Homer The Brave
Date: 6/12/01 9:39:17 PM
Good luck, Bob.
I've had similar experiences with shrinks and psych-folks who wanted to put me on medications. I'd ask why, and they'd say things like, "So you'll be able to deal." As if.
I've stumbled across a self-diagnosis I'm pretty satisfied with, but I need to go to an actual expert and find out for sure. And we all know what that means... Finding at least four different experts, three of whom suck. I'm in a relatively unique position in that I have the means to spend the time and effort involved in finding that last expert, and for this I'm grateful.
Ror*: When it comes to neurochemistry, we don't know anything at all. We have a clue, but we have it for the simple reason that it's the only kind of clue we can test for (blood levels of neurochemicals and those nifty scans of metabolic levels in the brain). There's far, far more that's not understood about the brain than is. We diagnose mental illness by observing behavior, and attempt to change the behavior by changing neurochemistry. Which is kinda crazy on the surface of it. :-)
I'd say that mental health science has more in common with 16th-century barbers putting leeches on their patients than actual science. The leeches being whatever pill the pharmaceutical industry has developed this week.
As a matter of policy, however, you're still wrong. :-) Many, many 'severe' cases began as less-severe cases, and perhaps even mild ones. In general, these things get worse the longer they go undiagnosed and untreated. Pro-active preventative mental health policies would do much more and be much cheaper than the lame ones we've got now.
Response #69
By: sooz
Date: 6/12/01 11:03:58 PM
Wasn't I going to stay out of this?
Homer, thanks for posting what you did. You make some great points.
Ror*, you seem willing to sacrifice a few people for "errors" in a government system... sort of a "sacrifice a few for the good of the whole", Borg-type of mentality. I'm not willing to do that... especially if you put a face on some of the few; specifically, Bob's face.
Bob's case may seem mild to you, because he's functioning; but he's not more worthy of appropriate care than the guy who roots around in the trash cans, looking for something to eat. The guy in the trash can doesn't deserve to be locked away against his will any more than Bob does. It seems that, because the trash can man is harder to look at than Bob (who, I swear, looks like a regular guy), you're more willing to lock him away. I'm not.
Again, charitable organizations for the folks without facilities to seek help have proven in the past to do a much better job of helping folks than the government. I don't want the government messing in my health care... and that includes my mental health.
Response #70
By: Capt. Spastic
Date: 6/13/01 5:52:00 PM
I'd be honored to drink with bob!
Response #71
By: Homer The Brave
Date: 6/13/01 6:37:25 PM
Put an anti-psychotic in yer beer, and toast to mental health!
Response #72
By: sooz
Date: 6/13/01 6:59:23 PM
I'd like to note that Bob's garage is THE premier drinking place in South Austin.
Response #73
By: bob
Date: 6/14/01 7:46:12 AM
perhaps someday, capt. not making plans more than 10 minutes in advance these days...ahhhh, the beauties of self employment.
Response #74
By: rorschach
Date: 6/14/01 10:11:40 AM
ok, I see what may be confusing you. you misunderstand my definition of extreme circumstances. I (still) maintain that if you are wanting to kill yourself, or others, this qualifies as an extreme case. And no sooz, I'm not suggesting that it is better to "sacrifice" the few for the greater good. I'm suggesting just the opposite. if there is any hint that the situation is extreme enough to pose a danger to the individual or others then something MUST be done. While it may not be the person's desire for something to be done, something must be to prevent further harm to himself or others. You see commitment as a bad thing that should not be forced on anyone. I however see it as just the opposite. it is there to prevent that person from hurting himself or others and to ensure this person gets treatment when the psychosis makes it difficult or impossible for the person ro recognise the need for such help. lets try a slightly different theoretical example to try to explain my position.
a couple has a young child. this child is diagnosed with say hairy cell leukemia (just picking easily treatable diseases out of my head, you may insert any easily treatable (or even not so easily treatable) disease in this blank if you so desire. The couple are both christian scientist or jehova's witness or some other religious sect that does not believe in medical intervention. This disease if memory serves has virtually a 100% cure rate with only one or two doses of relatively mild chemotherapy, but has a 100% mortality rate without treatment. the parents refuse treatment for thier minor child who legally has no voice in the decision. The doctors sue for guardianship in order to save the child's life. now, the question I pose is who is right? the doctors? the parents? In my view it is the doctors who are right. saving a child's life outweigh's the parent's religious views every time. now, lets map this ethical delimma back to a mental health situation. why is a mental health situation different from a physical health situation when life and death are involved? especially when the person in question is unable to make resonable decisions due to the very problem that is in question?
Response #75
By: sooz
Date: 6/14/01 12:28:47 PM
You just took a big jump from adults to children. Saving a child life because his nutjob parents are endangering him is one thing... forcing an adult who sometimes has suicidal thoughts to be committed is another.
For one thing, children don't have choices. Others sometimes have to be their advocates. This is not the case for adults.
Another point: You want to legislate consequences for people's thoughts. If Bob has a suicidal thought, you want the government to act on his freakin' THOUGHTS, and lock him up. Do you have any idea how bizarre that is, when you say it out loud?
So, essentially, you still think Bob is ripe for institutionalization against his will because of his thoughts. That'll teach him to share his thoughts with people, eh?
Response #76
By: Homer The Brave
Date: 6/14/01 7:15:06 PM
I think Ror* is backed in a corner. He understands that there's an actual problem (as does everyone else) with legitimately dangerous individuals running around loose without supervision. He also understands that relatively healthy (or 'neurologically-typical,' to use a better term) folks might fall through the cracks and end up in a looney bin (or 'state-run mental health facility,' to use a better term) against their will, and this proposition alarms him.
What I think he's missing is that many, many 'normal' folks do dangerous things all the time, and that many many 'crazy' folks are completely harmless. It's not a question of how crazy a person is, or how mentally-deficient, or neurologically-atypical. It's a question of what does a given person *need* in order to remain non-dangerous.
Our society has a huge gaping blind spot about disability in general, and mental illness in particular. No one wants to think about them, much less address them. There's a rather wide spectrum of atypicality, and it's creepy in its implication; just about everyone can find themselves on it. So rather than being creeped out, folks seem to want to say, 'lock up the crazies, and assume everyone else is sane,' simply because it's easier to think about. So to address what people need in order to not represent a danger, we first have to deal with the blind spot.
And with that in mind, I'll say, HOWDY! I'M AUTISTIC! I ALSO HAVE A CONGENITAL DEFECT OF THE HYPOTHALAMUS THAT PREVENTS ME FROM BEING ABLE TO SMELL!
I HAVE A DISABILITY! What's new with you?
Response #77
By: sooz
Date: 6/14/01 8:25:46 PM
I'm blind in one eye, and my driving is pretty frightening. Please don't lock me away...
Response #78
By: rorschach
Date: 6/15/01 10:20:29 AM
I don't consider myself backed in a corner homer, not at all. and yes you are right that "sane" people do dangerous things all the time and many mentally ill people are perfectly harmless. and no sooz, I do not see the difference between a child who is not capable of making an informed choice and an adult who is unable to make an informed choice. That is EXACTLY the point of a competency hearing. and they are assigned attornies ad litem to defend thier rights during the process, just like children are. Legally, there is no difference between the two situations.
Now, homey, are you endangering yourself or others because you cannot smell or are mildly autistic? Probably not. Due to nasal surgery I can't smell all that well either but I'm not looking to kill myself or others because of it, and I doubt you are either.
Sooz, the fact you can't see out of one eye is regrettable but are you a danger to yourself or others because of it? (driving is another issue... we'll set that issue asside for the moment.)
Now if your driving is dangerous then you may not need to be locked up, thats what suspended lisences are for......and by the way if the blindless affects your depth perception enough that you cannot judge distances then you may not legally qualify for a lisence. Many people who cannot see are barred from driving, that is the point of the vision test.
I am not afraid of "mentally typical" (if that is the term you would like to use) people being locked up without cause because the likeliood of that is pretty low. and if it were to occur, then the situation would most likely sort itself out fairly quickly. Someone at the facility would recognise that the individual doesn't belong there and kick 'em out because it costs alot of money to house and treat the menally ill, the hospital will want to cut thier losses on those they don't feel belong.
Response #79
By: sooz
Date: 6/15/01 10:44:43 AM
You still want to imprison (institutionalize, whatever) people for their thoughts. You didn't address that.
Response #80
By: Homer The Brave
Date: 6/15/01 1:55:24 PM
My point, dear Ror*, was that most of the 'mentally-ill' don't fall into the category of 'dangerous.' If you say that the mentally-ill should be locked away, then you're condemning a rather large segment of the population. You're wanting to sacrifice their quality of life for yours. If you're saying that dangerous people should be locked away, then fine. Just don't make a blanket statement that the mentally-ill are all dangerous, or that you alone (or science alone, or government alone, or whatever else alone) get to determine what 'dangerous' means.
The main problem facing the neurologically-atypical isn't their atypicality; it's other people's reactions to it.
Response #81
By: sooz
Date: 6/15/01 2:30:15 PM
P.S. Please don't assume that all suicidal people are homicidal. I'd hate to have to hide from Bob; I see him pretty often.
Response #82
By: Gowan McGland
Date: 6/15/01 10:06:04 PM
Not all homicidal people are suicidal, either.
Don't ask me how I know that.
I'M COLORBLIND AND CANNOT MAINTAIN A LONG TIME RELATIONSHIP!
(okay, maybe *I* should be locked up)
OH, I ALSO HAVE TROUBLE TELLING MY RIGHT FROM MY LEFT!
Response #83
By: sooz
Date: 6/16/01 8:42:38 PM
I'll vouch for those things being true about Gowan. It makes it great fun to be in the car with him. "Turn left at the yellow building" always yields an interesting result.
Response #84
By: Gowan McGland
Date: 6/16/01 9:12:51 PM
Well, yellow I'm okay with.
It's red and green (yes, like the LIGHTS) that confuses me.
(I actually have maintained a long time relationship with s00z, to be honest, but it was never particularly romantic. It was all sex.)
Response #85
By: sooz
Date: 6/17/01 7:59:33 AM
That was RALF you had the sexual relationship, silly, not me.
Response #86
By: Da Sissop
Date: 6/17/01 4:34:48 PM
Lemme back up to before the sex. Correct me if I misinterpreted things, but I think ror*'s original point was that the state, whether or not they were actually doing a good job at it, USED to provide some sort of mental health care for folks who had no place else to get it, but they stopped... and when they did, they basically turned a lot of people who had no place to go and no way to support themselves out onto the streets.
So, is it better to have these people "locked up" in some sort of treatment facility or fending for themselves out on the streets?
Response #87
By: Capt. Spastic
Date: 6/17/01 7:41:56 PM
Wow!
Really sooz?
bob has got it going on in his own garage!
bob, have you been introduced to the term...
"snerd"?
Speaking of...Fang...have you guys found another place since the Ale Houses demise?
Response #88
By: sooz
Date: 6/17/01 8:30:19 PM
Spas, you don't know the half of it. Bob's garage is amazing. We were snerding in there last night, and the night before, with various friends. I'm not sure, but I think Gowan may be aware of the wonderfulness of Bob's garage, and maybe has perhaps even visited it.
I could be wrong, though.
Now, where were we?
Response #89
By: Gowan McGland
Date: 6/18/01 10:34:32 AM
I've SEEN the garage, but I was never actually privy to the miraculous powers of the garage.
Response #90
By: sooz
Date: 6/18/01 11:58:02 AM
I watched Bob smoke a cigarette in that actual garage this VERY MORNING. It was AMAZING.
Ok, so it just looked like Bob smoking a cigarette any other day. But you get the idea.
Response #91
By: bob
Date: 6/18/01 3:24:36 PM
forgive me nuns, for i have sinned. it has been 4 days since my last visit here.
ror: as someone who is suicidal i would like to offer you several things.
1. i am not homocidal, i don't even hunt, seldom kill bugs, i am my only enemy.
2. i have not attempted suicide in 8 years or more, not that i haven't wanted to, but i haven't done it.
3. i think that i am capable of making decisions. for instance, i have decided not to purchase a handgun, and to leave my rifle with my parents. i know that i don't need access to these things, so i don't own them.
4. i am not constantly suicidal, just on occasion i get an overwhelming desire to die, it passes and i move on.
5. i would like for someone to sit me in a courtroom and prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that i am suicidal and a threat to anyone, including myself. when i was twelve, these issues started, living at home with my parents. i hid this from my parents until my sophomre year of college, and the only reason they found out then was some damn shrink told them.
homer: i am sometpye of depressive, one and a half polar.
ok, enough ranting for now.
Response #92
By: Capt. Spastic
Date: 6/18/01 8:11:56 PM
Ok, I have GOT to see this garage!
Response #93
By: sooz
Date: 6/19/01 2:36:00 AM
While sitting in yonder garage yesterday, it occurred to Bob and me that it's just a garage. It's got some tools on the wall, sometimes there's a truck in there, and if the truck's in the driveway, the ping piong table might be folded out and ready for play. No spinning disco ball, no live band... it's just a garage. It's the people IN IT that make it fun. Uh, I think. At least that's one theory.
Response #94
By: rorschach
Date: 6/19/01 10:50:08 AM
Fang, you hit exactly the point I'm trying to make. With the added point that what was typical practice in the 60's for mental treatment is very different from what is generally accepted treatment today. in fact New York state has a relatively new law on the books that will force those people who either cannot or will not choose treatment to do so under court order. Often those people are arrested in an effort to get them food and shelter and medical treatment. I submit that arresting them and putting them in jail alongside thieves and rapists is not a efficient use of police manpower and resources, nor is it the best way to get these people the help they need. This should be a social services issue but since social services are hamstrung by overly (and sadly misguided) liberal laws that were enacted in the 70's they are unable to help those who for one reason or another cannot bring themselves to seek treatment themselves.
Interestingly, there was a documentary on this very subject (it focused mainly on schitzophrenia) on A&E last night entitled "Shattered Minds".... and suprisingly the ultra-liberal media seemed to AGREE with me on this.....
Bob, you may not like the idea of drug treatment as a treatment of first resort, but it is far more effective by a very large margin than conventional psychotherapy EVER DREAMED of being.
There are a small minority of psychologists and therapists that resent the strides second and third generation drugs have made in the treatment of mental illness and will deride them as a panacea or worse, a placebo. Mainly they do this because as psychologists and non-medical doctors they are not allowed to prescribe drugs and they see thier livelihood disappearing and thier investment in training being made obsolete for many disorders. But by and large, they never had more than a 30% success rate with thier techniques anyway.
What they do not understand is that even once the neurochemistry is put back on track that those people who have been suffering from these illnesses for long periods usually have alot of problems that still need to be talked out too. They still may not be able to have relationships or they may resent thier siblings or they may not relate to thier parents or any number of other things. THESE DO respond to "the talking cure". But until the chemistry was working right, the treatments were mostly doomed to failure.
Many health professionals will agree that drugs are often over-used and mis-used, but they are still the most potent tool that neuro-psychiatry has to bring to bear.
Response #95
By: Ralf
Date: 6/19/01 6:36:02 PM
I would like to go on record as saying the sex with Gowan was unsatisfactory. Not his fault though; I kept thinking about Sooz.
Response #96
By: Capt. Spastic
Date: 6/19/01 7:22:55 PM
Ralf,
Are you sure that the reason it was unsatisfactory wasn't because it was one of the rare occasions that you WERE wearing pants?
Response #97
By: sooz
Date: 6/19/01 9:31:50 PM
I have never had sex with Ralf while either party was wearing pants.
Ror*, you didn't address Bob's issues - namely, the one about how anyone can prove he's suicidal in a court of law, therefore declaring him lock-uppable.
Also, you didn't address mine, which was "Do you really want to incarcerate people for their thoughts?"
Response #98
By: Homer The Brave
Date: 6/20/01 1:27:46 AM
Here's how it went:
1) Mental patients were wards of the state. Borderline folks couldn't get treatment if they didn't have bux, so they'd end up in an asylum or somesuch.
2) Then in the 70s, those evil liberals said, 'Hey, let's get those people out of the hospital and onto a treatment plan that involves their regaining their humanity.' So everyone agreed, because it was good politics, and everyone rejoiced.
3) No one followed up. Funds were cut because it, too, was good politics. Welcome to the 80s.
Response #99
By: rorschach
Date: 6/20/01 9:51:49 AM
proving someone is clinically depressed is possible, proving a person is suicidal is harder. usually you have to look at past attempts as a basis for the decision. In Bob's case, sooz, and everyone else here on the board (and in fact, the actual board hardware itself) could be supeonaed (sp???) because he admits in his postings he as been intermittantly depressed enough to be suicidal but has never acted upon it. so yes, the case could be proven in Bob's case.
Should someone be committed to a mental institution for thier thoughts? admittedly this is a more grey area. it kinda depends on the thoughts now doesn't it? if the thoughts were more along the lines of say tying sooz up and ravishing her for instance that is one thing, thoughts of wanting to end it all is quite another. that is the point of the competency hearing. to try to make a decision where there can never be cut and dried rules because every situation is different. what if the columbine kids were identified earlier as harboring fantasies of going postal in thier school and committed? how many people would still be alive today?
Your question is where do you draw the line. my answer is that the line is not straight or even curved but gerrymanders all over depending on the circumstance and no one guideline exists or CAN exist to guide it's path. but by asking where to draw the line you are then admitting that a line needs to be drawn in the first place.
Response #100
By: sooz
Date: 6/20/01 10:19:28 AM
First: "Bob" isn't Bob's real name. Good luck proving he posted things. How do you know I didn't post them from his computer? Feh. The idea that you'd even consider such a course of action is, well...
And you really DO think locking people up for their thoughts is okay. I find this repulsive (it actually makes my stomach churn), reprehensible, unconstitutional, unprovable and morally horrific.
What you're proposing would only stop people from seeking help and from sharing their thoughts with others, donchathink?
Alright, I'll share something personal from my own life. When I was 16, I tried to kill myself. I didn't particularly want to die, but I certainly didn't want to live. My home life was so physically abusive that the only options I could come up with were to either go home and get "beaten to a bloody pulp" (the words my parents used that morning before I went to school), or end it all. The latter seemed better, so I tried really hard, and almost succeeded. After an evaluation by a therapist, it was concluded that my parents were in dire need of counseling, and I wasn't. If I had been institutionalized at that time to "protect" myself, it would have been a mistake, as life drastically improved after this incident. Or, suppose I had just written in a journal that I had THOUGHT about killing myself... should I have been locked up then? Shoot, what teenager doesn't ponder suicide at one point or another? Not so many attempt it, but it crosses a lot of folks' minds.
Response #101
By: rorschach
Date: 6/20/01 11:46:13 AM
Five Children Killed in Houston
Updated: Wed, Jun 20 1:27 PM EDT
HOUSTON (AP)- Five children, ranging from ages 6 months to 7 years, were found dead in a home Wednesday, and a woman who said she was their mother confessed to killing them, police said.
The woman was in custody, police spokesman Robert Hurst said.
Police believe the children were drowned.
"When our responding officer arrived, he was met at the door by the woman who was breathing heavily and you could tell she was disturbed," police spokesman John Cannon said. "At that time she said to the officer: 'I killed my children."'
Cannon said the officer asked her where the children were.
"She led the officer to the bedroom where there were four bodies and then led the officer to the bathroom where there was one body in the bathtub," he said.
Police said officers went to the house after receiving a telephone call, apparently from the woman.
The woman was being questioned. Her name was not immediately released.
The five children were indentified as four boys and one girl.
---break---
what if she had been committed?
Response #102
By: sooz
Date: 6/20/01 11:51:48 AM
She had been committed, Ror*, for depression. And according to a follow-up article, she was on the medication you praise so highly, taking it regularly. How on earth can any system predict whether a person is well, or if they're going to snap one day and kill their children? How absolutely awful... but what would you have done to avoid it?
I sense a lot of anger in you, Ror*. Perhaps you should be committed before you, well, do something. I'm sure I could find some posts on this bbs to back that up. In this post http://www.webnuns.org/grun/boards_readthread.asp?id=732&gid=3
you expressed anger at a McDonald's worker. In fact, you look nearly homicidal over it.
In May of 1998, you said: You wanna make sure you kill somebody quietly? use a huge, heavy bullet (say .45 to .50 caliber), moving subsonically, and a good baffle type silencer. and make sure the cg (center of gravity) of the bullet is very close to the base so it will tumble, you'll likely have the bullet hit broadside, spreading the energy around. just don't do this from long range, the accuracy will be for shit.
I sense dangerous issues at work here.
And actually, Ror*, in 1/98 you said, regarding Clinton: Basically, this guy is doing NOTHING that just about every OTHER president hasn't done over the years. you dont jail a dog for pissing on a fire hydrant, you realize that he's just being a dog. you don't jail a president for boinking his intern, you realize that he's just being a politician.
But jail a teenager for being depressed? That seems to be ok in your book.
Response #103
By: Capt. Spastic
Date: 6/20/01 7:12:51 PM
What if she'd been commited, and not thrown out in the standard 30 days the government and most insurance plans seem to think it only takes to cure someone whose mentally ill?
Response #104
By: rorschach
Date: 6/21/01 9:38:45 AM
as near as I can tell that was the problem in this case, she was not being monitored to make sure she was responding to the medication. and in fact there is no evidence AT THIS POINT IN THE INVESTIGATION one way or another that she was even taking the medication she had been prescribed. antidepressants (the new SSRI types) can take up to four weeks or more to see if they are even going to work for a given individual, people who are depressed often give up before they know whether it will work or not because they feel like it is a futile effort.
and by the way sooz, describing the mechanics of how a sniper rile works and wanting to use one on someone are two very different things, I happen to find the mechanics of well built machines facinating. this applies to cars and aircraft too. a gun is just a machine. and besides, I'm not talking about someone off the street making the decision whether a person is competent or not. I'm talking about someone who actually has training in the mental health feild, to my knowledge, there is no such individual participating in this conversation.
Response #105
By: sooz
Date: 6/21/01 10:26:03 AM
Sorry, but that didn't sound like a sniper rifle description to me. You said "short distance", which led me to understand that you were talking about popping a cap in someone.
Ror*, I'm dropping out of this conversation, as it's really just going 'round. Perhaps Spas or Homer or Gowan or Jim can add something, but you and I are never gonna get anywhere.
Response #106
By: Da Sissop
Date: 6/21/01 4:30:06 PM
I'll take a stab at it, with my trusty knife, "Jake." (jabs knife menacingly at various readers)
There are a lot of kRaZy people in this world. A good number of them have jobs, families, friends, or other means of social and/or financial support so that they can get drugs or counseling if they so choose, or their "guardian" can get it for them (side note to ponder: is "Dad" any better qualified to have you committed? Should anyone *ever* be committed to an institution who did not explicitly consent to it?)
Then there are those who have no support from family or friends. No means of getting or keeping a job. No home. Are these people better off on the streets?
Since the Columbine shooters were mentioned earlier, I'll refer to them in this handy example: After they did their thing, everyone was lamenting how nobody paid attention to the signs, oh if only someone had intervened and gotten them the help they so desperately needed... Those of us not directly involved could nod knowingly and point to the parents, or to the school officials, and say yep, if only they had done something.
Okay, so I'd kinda *like* a mechanism of some sort so that people who don't have parents or school officials can have somebody intervene on their behalf.
Response #107
By: Capt. Spastic
Date: 6/21/01 5:38:19 PM
Not me.
I'm staying out of this, as I said early on.
I just wanted to interject that one little note, and drop back out.
Besides, seems like the only thing I'm good at doing when I post, is pissing people off.
Response #108
By: bob
Date: 6/21/01 10:22:04 PM
ror: i see a lot of danger in what you are proposing. first, it would be like locking up everyone who drinks alcohal because they may get in the car and drive drunk and wipe out a family of four.
also, i barely trust the gov't to lock up people who commit crimes, much less those who may, someday, commit one. to try to figure out whether one persons mental instability will lead them to eat a whole pound of hershy kisses, vs. someone elses who makes them drown their kids in the bath tub.
so, in effect, i think that you are trying to what is best for people...but let me put it this way...if you were to have me committed for six months. when i get out i would have lost my house, my job, and my entire life style. so in six months i will have pretty pink pills, but little else. i don't see that as a way to make me better. perhaps i am jsut being shortsighted, but i don't want to loose everything right now because you don't want me to kill myself.
Response #109
By: rorschach
Date: 6/22/01 10:34:33 AM
Bob, you stated "perhaps i am jsut being shortsighted, but i don't want to loose everything right now because you don't want me to kill myself." and you don't think you'd loose everything anyway if you did kill yourself? last time I checked it's kinda hard to take it with you.....
and yes, Bob, that is my only goal here, to try to do the best thing possible given the constraints and tradeoffs available. would outpatient treatment be better? I'm sure it depends on the individual in question and the situation. but in an ideal world and in an ideal situation? absolutely. i don't want to lock people up for the sake of locking people up. given how cross-threaded I am with many people, it would probably be awful lonely out here and awful crowded on the inside if I did.
I do understand the situation about loosing everything if you were to essentially vanish for 6 months. the same would be true for me as well. I could not afford to stop working for 6 months either. but you know, there might be another way as I stated earlier, if the system was set up where the acute incarceration only lasted for the 3-8 weeks required to stabilize you, and then shift to a "halfway house" situation where you can leave to work, and you are monitored to make sure you are still taking and responding to the medication, for the remainder of the 6 months that might be easier on people. and in your case where you do most of your work at home, it might be possible for you to continue to work during the stabilization phase as well.
is there danger? of course. but the government has the responsibility of proving thier case before they can take action. and you have the right of appeal. that's what the "due process of law" thing in the constitution is all about.
you mentioned that you barely trusted the government to lock up criminals. are there innocent people in prison? maybe a very few, but well over 98% are there because they really are guilty of the crime they were convicted of, or more likely a worse crime that they plea bargained down to a lesser one. is it better to lock away 98% of the bad guys and accidentally lock 2% of the good guys away too or not lock away any of them and have 100% of the bad guys roaming the streets? no system is ever perfect. that is a statistical impossibility.
The mental health system has apparently taken the tack of don't commit anybody because some healthy individuals might get committed by accident. I don't think that is a workable answer. They have gotten away with that idea so far because most mentally ill are not violent, just unable to care for themselves so they just become bums who live under bridges and either starve to death, or freeze to death or drink/drug themselves to death and nobody gives a rats ass about them. so there hasn't been the public hue and cry to "do something". the real question is can the system be better than it is now. and I think it can be.
Response #110
By: Ralf
Date: 6/23/01 4:50:18 AM
I'm not wearing any pants.
Response #111
By: bob
Date: 6/24/01 11:29:40 AM
i think it was thomas jefferson, but one of the founding fathers said it is better to let 10 guilty men go free than to have 1 innocent man go to jail. i strongly agree with this, which i why i agree that OJ should have walked. not that i think he didn't do it, but i think that the prosecution did a terrible job and did not prove beyond a shadow of doubt that he did it.
as for me, lossing everything and living would be worse than dieing in my misguided opinion. if i am dead, i really don't have to worry about what happens to my stuff. but, that is just where i stand on it. personally, i think i am doing ok on my own. i am buying a house, have a good job that i love. i would just prefer to deal with the depression on my own, then add the struggle of dealing with the idoits in the mental health field. it is a catch 22 i know, but to me i am better at dealing with this than i am at dealing with the doctors.
Response #112
By: Capt. Spastic
Date: 6/24/01 6:32:32 PM
I agree too bob.
Too bad 98% of the populous of the state of Texas DO NOT agree with you, myself and Thomas Jefferson.
Response #113
By: Xtopher
Date: 6/28/01 12:12:24 PM
Perhaps I just missed this, but I'll ask anyway: Bob, how is your life going right now? Are the suicidal thoughts a clear result of screwed up neurochemistry, or are there persistant or reoccuring problems that when you try to deal with them or dwell on them lead you to these thoughts? Have you noticed any particular patterns in when they occur?
Personally, I disagree with administering meds without also seeing a therapist, at least at first, to discuss the problems related to the mental illness and how to deal with them. One particular friend of mine who just started taking anti-depressant medication within the past few months commented, "I realized that for the first time in twenty five years I actually have the ability to feel true happiness. Unfortunately, my life is shit!"
Response #114
By: sooz
Date: 6/28/01 10:41:32 PM
I'm not gonna speak for Bob's situation. Instead...
About the other topic, I do want to say that there aren't always "problems related to the mental illness." Sometimes people with absolutely dandy lives have clinical depression.
Response #115
By: Xtopher
Date: 6/29/01 9:31:30 AM
This is true, and this is also what I wanted to distinguish: wether Bob's depression is purely a product of brain chemicals being out of whack of if there were other factors that caused it.
Response #116
By: bob
Date: 6/29/01 10:18:16 AM
Xtopher: for the most part, i am pretty sure that my brain chemestry is just screwed. if you look at me on paper, at least up until a couple of months ago, you would think that i have had a perfect life. my parents were good to me, made an adequate living to support me, are still married. i made decent grades in school and have a great job that i like a lot, most times.
the suicidal thoughts have been persistant, for the most part, over the last 14 years. they just occur randomly with no prodding at all. for instance, last night i was sitting at a coffee shop with some friends and i got the urge to go shot myself in the head (remmeber why i don't have a gun in my possession comment). life was going well, but i just got that urge.
as far as periphery stuff, my wife did leave me about 2 months ago. that has caused a disruption, or drastic change in my life. in my position, i live off of routines in life, so her leaving ended all my routines. my emotional state has been particularly fun in light of this as now i have to remmeber how to deal with my swings on my own. love has always been a sort of lithium for me. maybe that is why my relationships don't seem to work out the way i think they should.
to avoid any confusion, and the reason i didn't bring this up before, the problems that i am facing have been with me since i was in junior high school and have nothing to do with doomed relationships. my wife leaving me did not cause me to become suicidal, i was still suicidal while we were married. i have not been happy in so long that i really don't know what it would even feel like.
this is a simple statement on my life, please don't start feeling sorry for me, i really hate that. everyone has shit in their life that they have to deal with, this is mine. i am ok with it and hope for others to be too
Response #117
By: Capt. Spastic
Date: 6/29/01 8:01:19 PM
The thing I find interesting is, and please don't take offense Bob, but people that are depressed and view their upbrining as normal...well how accurate exactly is that guage? When you factor in the ideal that most people view their upbringing as "normal" (no matter how fucked up it is), primarily because they have nothing else to compare it to. Adults of alcoholic or abusive parents virtually all believe that they had "normal" childhoods. Consequently, how accurate is it when a chronically depressed person views his childhood as "normal"?
Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't. Surely there is a margin to be considered.
Response #118
By: sooz
Date: 6/29/01 10:06:41 PM
I don't know any child of an alcoholic that views their upbringing as "normal." I believe Bob was referring to a family where the parents were straight/sober, loved their kids, worked hard, didn't beat them, etc.
I'm not saying Bob's depression is clinical depression; I have no idea. But to blame a chemical imbalance that causes depression on one's upbrining makes as much sense as blaming my congenital blindness in one eye on my upbringing. I was just born that way.
Response #119
By: Capt. Spastic
Date: 6/30/01 10:34:56 PM
Sooz says:
"I don't know any child of an alcoholic that views their upbringing as "normal.""
Sooz, why do we view monogamy in our society as normal, and other cultures that do not adhrere to that ideal are viewed as "abnormal"? Why do we look at driving on the right side of the road normal, and the European way of driving on the left, "Odd"? Until you have something else to compare it to, an individual always looks at what's familiar as "normal"
This is a completely natural phenomenon.
Response #120
By: sooz
Date: 7/1/01 8:25:00 AM
I'm pretty sure Bob was talking about normal in western culture since, um, that's where we are. I didn't know you were gonna go into a dissection of the word "normal".
Response #121
By: Xtopher
Date: 7/2/01 1:01:02 PM
Thanks for clarifying the issue for me, Bob... from what you said, this DOES sound like a case in which some sort of (hopefully very mild) medication might be called for. Rather than get into what (in this group) will be an interminable discussion on the definition of the word "normal," let's take as a given that your child-hood, upbringing, and majority of your adult life was largely without undue trauma. I will assume that you are NOT a danger to others, and at this point you are not considered to be a danger to yourself because you have not made an actual attempt to end your life.
I assume from your comments that, under normal... er... TYPICAL circumstances, that you are able to control your mood swings (leaving suicidal thoughts out of the equation for the moment) to your own satisfaction. With such a major life change as you've experienced, it's to be expected that you are struggling to get control of your emotions. The biggest idicator, to me, that some form of medication or therapy is called for is your statement that you "haven't been happy for so long that you don't even know what it would feel like."
I assume that the circumstances and effects of your wife leaving you are independant of this feeling, but please correct me if I'm wrong. Out of curiosity, when was the last time you DO clearly remember being truly happy? When did you notice your capacity for happiness diminishing or going away? You said that you have been on various sorts of medication and that none of them worked... did they have ANY effect?
As far as your peripherial problems... you have our compassion, not our pity. My wife (Jaka) and I seperated about a year ago, and I know how difficult that was for me... and we had what has been described as a disgustingly amicable breakup. It's not plesant, but it's definitely survivable.
Response #122
By: bob
Date: 7/2/01 10:34:40 PM
capt: i am sorry, i should have defined my terms. i grew up with a good family, they treated me well, provided for me well, and i saw very little trauma as a child (to borrow the expression from xtopher). people typically would conclude that i had it well. since my up bringing i went to college, graduated and now have a great job that pays me too much money and that i enjoy doing. for all practical purposes i should be one of the happiest people on the planet.
xtopher: i do not think that i am a danger to others because i genuinely care about people way too much for my own good. but, some of that i figure stems from the fact that i care about my self so little. as far as being a danger to myself...i guess that would depend on how you define it. i think people could argue that i am a danger to myself based on some of the things that i do to control myself (lesser of two evils that i am not prepared to go into further, now.)
the suicidal thoughts have not increased nor diminshied since my wife left. they are a fact of my life. i have been able to keep them in control for the better part of 8 years now, although i did make attampts in the past. apparently i never was very good at it.
as for happiness, i have given up trying to pinpoint the last time, but i know that the drastic change occured when i was in 12 years old (about 14 years ago). so sometime before i went into 8th grade was the last time i think i was happy.
meds: the only medicine i tried was paxil and it did have an effect. i halucinated constantly for 3 days and basically freaked out. after the upswing came the cyclic downswing. this was a really annoyance since i wasn't having any major episodes at the time that i sought help, i just got roped into it (long story).
Response #123
By: Xtopher
Date: 7/3/01 2:41:23 PM
On the danger to yourself issue: Hey, whatever you have to do to get by is cool, so long as it's not hurting anyone else. Pretty much everyone I know that has wonky brain chemistry problems either currently self-medicates or has done so in the past, or has some other personalized method of dealing with their uppity noggin. Jaka, for instance (and my current girlfriend as well) dealt with ADD through a moderate dependance on caffine and niccotine, and one friend of mine relied on smoking pot to keep the worst of his schizophrenia at bay... not that I reccomend any of these things, but I understand what you mean.
About the only thing left that I can think of as factor to effect this is your comment that you care so much for others in part because you care so little for yourself? Out of curiosity, what do you mean by that? I'm having trouble making a self-consistent outlook based on that statement... which is what I'm trying to do to try and understand where you're coming from on all this.
On the subject of happiness... I don't know, I'm having trouble wrapping my mind around this, but I'm suddenly caught wondering how other people define happiness, or if it is something that is societally defined. Not really "Society" as in America as a whole, that's too huge and diverse, but within an individual's circle of friends and close family. For me, happiness largely has more do with my internal state than my external circumstances, or at least how I view myself within the context of my circumstances. This is why I ask you to explain why you think so little of yourself... I can't help feeling that it's related.
I just realized that I've been, almost compulsively, troubleshooting your life, bob. I hope this is more helpful than annoying to you... and I apologize if any of this gets too personal. This is what I get for spending too long studying people and working in technical support..
Response #124
By: Homer The Brave
Date: 7/3/01 4:40:16 PM
In terms of happiness, I think there's 'being contented' and then there's 'unshakable moment of locked-down, world-spinning-around-you bliss.' I think a lot of people are shooting for the latter and get disappointed by the former when that's all they can work.
And yes, happiness is work. It's like a banquet; lots of folks had to ready the meal before you could enjoy it.
I've been suicidal, but not out of despair exactly. More like when you're playing chess with someone and you know there's no way you can win, even though it's not really the endgame yet. Do you continue just to go through the motions?
Bob, I wish I could say it's all worth it, but I can't. On the other hand, my friend Dale keeps reminding me that my body is to my soul what a space suit is to an astronaut. Yay! Space exploration!
Response #125
By: bob
Date: 7/4/01 12:06:46 PM
xtopher: simply put, i hate myself. if anyone needs anything, i think that they (whom i generally don't hate) deserve it more than i do. but that may just be an excuse, who knows. as far as why i don't like me, i have no idea, i just don't. there is no real explanation to it (except for wacky chemestry, far as i can tell). i am not sure that i have the answers to satisfy your curiosities, but i will try. if you get too personal, i will let you know. i really don't find this helpful to me, no offence, but it is entertaining rather than annoying.
homer: i really don't have a definition of happiness. maybe everyone i meet has the same feelings that i do, but just hides them as well. i certainly hope not. but emotions are something that can never be conveyed accurately from one person to the next. look at bondage, what i would see as torture, some people see as fun. people have different reactions to everything...it is just part of life.
i like dale's analogy, it is interesting. and space exploration is good, too. hahahaha
Response #126
By: Capt. Spastic
Date: 7/4/01 8:34:09 PM
Bob,
What's not to like about you?
Sounds like your garage alone is worth the price of admission.
Was there ever a point where you DID NOT hate yourself?
Response #127
By: sooz
Date: 7/4/01 11:44:25 PM
I was in that very garage tonight. Wow.
Response #128
By: rorschach
Date: 7/5/01 10:30:59 AM
while thomas jefferson's comment is a wonderful ideal, and even I wish it were the case, sadly, it never is that simple. Life tends to be messy and grey instead of black and white. How I wish it really was that simple..... there is no perfect system so to comply with Thomas's goal, only anarchy is possible. and i doubt anyone who has actually tried to reason through society's problems thinks that anarchy is a viable alternative. anyone who DOES think anarchy is workable has never been on the loosing end of a problem and felt that there was no way to redress the situation. anarchy is a pretty name for: rule #1 = he who has the gold (or is bigger or stronger, or meaner, etc.) makes the rules. rule #2 = if you don't like said rules, see rule #1
bob, I understand why you would be leery of SSRI's based on your reaction to paxil, and I can also understand your reluctance to try anything new since routine is what gets you through the day.... but I do hope you can find the courage to try again, not all the SSRI's work the same, and SSRI's are not the only treatment available either. have you had your hormone levels checked? this sounds like it started long about puberty and hormonal imbalances can cause the sort of depression you describe as well. I too had a spell where the hormones were all out of whack and I was a real son of a bitch to deal with for a while there (not that I'm all THAT much better but I AM better now...). it took about a year to get things sorted out and I was pretty undearble for a while, I wasn't suicidal or even seriously depressed, just bitchy and irritable.
If we didn't think you were deserving of some contentment and happines we wouldn't be tearing each other's throats out fighting over the best way to help you. if we think you deserve it, i think you ought to consider doing so as well. the first real step is deciding you don't like the status quo. once you've decided that you don't like what is going on, then comes how to fix it instead of merely enduring it. you have to be motivated to really want this, until you decide you want it, the long term outlook is'nt all that good. you aren't going to want to keep up with it or control it, you'll instead let it control you and that is not a good way to live, to let things control you is to abdicate your responsibility to your self and to those who care about you.
killing yourself isn't going to make you happy, it will just make you not care, it isn't a positive, it is merely the lack of a negative, which equates to zero. I really don't see this as an optimal fix if there are other possible fixes that have the chance of better outcome. now if you had tried everything that was out there and nothing helped at all, the equation might be a little (and I do mean LITTLE) different, but there are always new things coming along, you've got to keep reaching for the brass ring, because it is moving too... you may think that zero is good enough for you, but I think you could do better....and i think deep down, you do too.
Response #129
By: bob
Date: 7/5/01 10:40:35 AM
capt: first of all, the garage is pretty cheap. usually i let people in for free, and sometimes provide them with beer.
secondly, sure, before i knew any better i liked me a lot, i suppose. hahahaha
sooz was in the garage for a while, but then she got banished to the driveway. hahaha, oh well, lets set it straight, we all went into the driveway to not watch the fireworks.
Response #130
By: sooz
Date: 7/5/01 11:15:16 AM
Yep, that's exactly how it happened. We had already finished our own fireworks some time earlier, and were in the drinking-and-philosophizing stage that comes later. We heard ka-booms, and thought if we left the sanctity of the garage we might see someone else's fireworks... but alas, no.
Response #131
By: Capt. Spastic
Date: 7/5/01 8:17:03 PM
Bob, at what point did you experience your "wakening"?
When did you "know better than to like yourself"?
Sooz, I want to come philosophize and drink!
I'll even let you folks start a pool on how long I'm there before I piss someone off.
:)
Response #132
By: sooz
Date: 7/5/01 9:42:24 PM
I'd like to put my money on 17 minutes. That gives us time to get the pleasantries out of the way and argue over beer brands or something.
Response #133
By: bob
Date: 7/6/01 4:43:49 PM
capt: i was 12 when it happened.
sooz: i bet it takes longer than that, no one in the garage is real quick to get po'ed.
Response #134
By: sooz
Date: 7/6/01 10:00:57 PM
Yeah, you're right... something about the garage makes people mellow, I guess. I've never seen a fight break out there once.
Response #135
By: Capt. Spastic
Date: 7/9/01 7:40:48 PM
Bob:
12 huh? Man, that's a rough age, and to have something like that happen at that age is even worse. What exactly did you realize at that age? I mean, what was the sudden realization that you had?
Sooz:
17 minutes?
Gee, you think it would be THAT long?
Response #136
By: Homer The Brave
Date: 7/10/01 1:15:11 AM
I learned some very, very painful things about myself at age 12. That I wasn't suicidal at the time was largely due to my own desire to see how it all worked out. (And at 33, I'm only beginning to see that happening.)
So perhaps whatever Bob realized at 12 was true. And perhaps it was true at the time, but not true now. Who knows?
Response #137
By: sooz
Date: 7/10/01 6:58:17 PM
HOmer, you're 33? Good gravy, you look 19.
Response #138
By: bob
Date: 7/10/01 9:03:57 PM
capt: nothing happened, just everything suddenly changed. there were no traumatic events...i just got depressed.
Response #139
By: Capt. Spastic
Date: 7/10/01 9:25:00 PM
Bob:
That sucks man, sorry to hear it. Depressed at age 12, and that way ever since? Really sorry to hear that. Do you think there is anything that could make you happy?
Sooz:
I agree. Let's see, if Homer's 33, that must make me...
Oh damn, now I'M depressed. j/k
Speaking of ages, my birthday is next Monday. If anyone is going to be in the Austin area this Saturday, I'm going to be at BB Rovers on Jollyville here in town (my favorite beerery), to celebrate my birthday. Anyone that would like to come is welcome.
Response #140
By: Homer The Brave
Date: 7/11/01 2:12:26 AM
Looking 19 at 33 is related to the very bad news I got at age 12. Imagine that.
Response #141
By: Capt. Spastic
Date: 7/12/01 8:08:04 PM
Things could be worse Homer.
You could have looked 75 at 19.
Response #142
By: sooz
Date: 7/14/01 10:57:29 AM
I have a feeling the issue is deeper than a youthful appearance, Spas.
Response #143
By: bob
Date: 7/14/01 1:27:21 PM
i have a feeling i am missing something since i don't know what any of you look like, 'cept one.
Response #144
By: sooz
Date: 7/14/01 1:31:38 PM
You know 2 of us. Me and Gowan. Silly Bob.
Response #145
By: Dapper Dan
Date: 10/14/01 1:33:56 PM
You dont know who i am but i know where you live! By the way hey gowan sooz and bob.
Response #146
By: Gowan McGland
Date: 10/14/01 1:54:47 PM
I bet I do.
Response #147
By: Seventh of Seven
Date: 10/14/01 3:53:30 PM
i bet i don't!
Response #148
By: sooz
Date: 10/14/01 8:00:53 PM
.
Response #149
By: WitchHazel
Date: 10/15/01 8:04:40 AM
Hmmmm.
Response #150
By: bob
Date: 10/15/01 12:32:56 PM
i don't know, you sure about that?
Response #151
By: WitchHazel
Date: 10/15/01 1:16:15 PM
Positive!
Response #152
By: bob
Date: 10/15/01 11:44:28 PM
hahaha witch
Response #153
By: Dapper Dan
Date: 10/16/01 5:48:05 AM
Well... I'm confused.
Response #154
By: WitchHazel
Date: 10/16/01 10:44:02 AM
Dude. Confusion is only a state of mind.
Response #155
By: bob
Date: 10/16/01 11:21:09 AM
well here, confusion is the only state of mind
Response #156
By: WitchHazel
Date: 10/16/01 3:39:29 PM
Speak for yourself, Bob. :-)
Response #157
By: bob
Date: 10/17/01 1:38:54 PM
i was, you are not here (even if you do have a camera)
Response #158
By: sooz
Date: 10/17/01 7:45:19 PM
Witch: I went ahead and installed that special zoom lens on the camera that you were asking for, so you can get those close-ups...
Response #159
By: WitchHazel
Date: 10/17/01 10:58:09 PM
Good thing, because I was JUST about to hafta fly down there on mowing day...
Response #160
By: bob
Date: 10/19/01 12:41:18 PM
i thought about mowing my yard today, but i figured it would rude to do it without notifing witch
Response #161
By: WitchHazel
Date: 10/19/01 1:14:38 PM
Sooz, time to turn on the camera.
Wait...A little to the left...
Okay.
It's safe to come out now, Bob.
Response #162
By: sooz
Date: 10/19/01 1:34:13 PM
Damn, I'm at work. I guess I'll have to get Richie to set it up.
Response #163
By: WitchHazel
Date: 10/19/01 1:47:00 PM
Now. Hurry.
Response #164
By: sooz
Date: 10/19/01 7:49:28 PM
Too late. I saw Bob. He done got dressed and went to the theater. No, seriously. Stop laughing. I mean it!
Response #165
By: bob
Date: 10/20/01 10:38:27 AM
hahahahaha
yep nothing makes me get dressed faster than poorly done shakespeare. which, i know, i cannot spell. i saw a rather bad verion of the tempest last night. at first everyone seemed to be dressed in clothes fitting of the time period, then all the sudden on guy shows up in a leather trench coat, WWI flying goggles and a leather barret? it was just a little disconected after that
Response #166
By: WitchHazel
Date: 10/20/01 1:26:14 PM
I saw the most disturbing thing today.
I was in this artsy store today, looking for a funky present for my brother's birthday. In front of the store, I saw a Van Gogh scarecrow. Really. It was a normal looking scarecrow, except that it had a Van Gogh head, with a bloody-looking bandage on one ear. Now, THAT oughta scare some crows!!
Of course, it made me think of Bob, except it had its pants on.
Response #167
By: Homer The Brave
Date: 10/20/01 3:17:58 PM
Van Gogh made a famous painting called 'The Crows.' That's the real irony.
Response #168
By: WitchHazel
Date: 10/20/01 3:29:28 PM
THAT PART hadn't even occurred to me. Wow. I'm even MORE disturbed.
Response #169
By: Gowan McGland
Date: 10/20/01 11:56:05 PM
How is that even possible, Witchy?
Response #170
By: WitchHazel
Date: 10/22/01 8:26:14 AM
There are times, yes, that even *I* am deeply disturbed. I know, it must be a shock to you that I do have deep feelings about something. ;-)
Response #171
By: WitchHazel
Date: 11/14/01 3:19:09 PM
I never did ask what Bob was for Halloween. A streaker? Vincent Van Gogh? Fat Bastard?
Response #172
By: sooz
Date: 11/14/01 4:41:01 PM
He was a bartender. He made some great margaritas!
Response #173
By: WitchHazel
Date: 11/14/01 5:40:00 PM
Oh that's LAME. Even *I* was a bartender! I meant COSTUME!
Response #174
By: Da Sissop
Date: 11/14/01 7:45:21 PM
I was the Invisible Man. Kids would come knocking, and I would disappear into the back room.
Response #175
By: WitchHazel
Date: 11/15/01 8:42:55 AM
Bahahahahaha!
Response #176
By: bob
Date: 11/15/01 10:59:16 AM
i don't really get into to costumes and role playing. i think i called my self "bite me man". when people asked what my costume was, i just said "bite me".
Response #177
By: WitchHazel
Date: 11/15/01 11:31:26 AM
You're such a loving and sweet guy, Bob. That's why I like you.
Response #178
By: bob
Date: 11/15/01 7:07:23 PM
that's me, a big ol' sweetheart, warm and fuzzy, etc..
Response #179
By: WitchHazel
Date: 11/15/01 9:28:18 PM
Come're and gimme a hug. (I know you got gypped in the group hug thing, so I'll make it up to ya.)
Response #180
By: bob
Date: 11/16/01 10:25:18 AM
thanks, that is the nicest thing anyone has done for me in minutes
Response #181
By: WitchHazel
Date: 11/16/01 10:29:22 AM
Gee, don't be so enthusiastic.
Response #182
By: sooz
Date: 11/17/01 12:30:03 PM
I sorta almost hugged Bob last night.
Response #183
By: Gowan McGland
Date: 11/17/01 12:37:02 PM
I may have done more than hug him last night. There were a lot of margaritas involved, though, so I don't think anyone remembers anything.
Response #184
By: bob
Date: 11/17/01 4:49:22 PM
ahem, i was the one drinking pepsi, remember....oh, you probably don't, but i do.
Response #185
By: sooz
Date: 11/17/01 5:04:11 PM
I had a mango margarita (yum), a banana margarita (even better), a peach margarita (really bad idea), and part of a generic frozen margarita that Sandy-down-the-hall bought me. That was the end.
Response #186
By: Gowan McGland
Date: 11/17/01 7:15:28 PM
And half of my Mercedes of Margaritas.
Response #187
By: sooz
Date: 11/18/01 8:00:30 AM
And part of Caroline's margarita martini.
Hmm. Maybe I drank a lot. I ate a big meal and spread the drinking over several hours, though, which must be why I still remember things.
Response #188
By: WitchHazel
Date: 11/18/01 7:45:16 PM
Damn. There was some DRINKIN' goin' down.
So, tell me, did anyone finally get a picture of Bob? (Gowan?)
Response #189
By: sooz
Date: 11/18/01 8:31:12 PM
Gowan managed to get a picture of the back of Bob's head. It's a charming photo.
Response #190
By: Gowan McGland
Date: 11/19/01 8:15:51 AM
Bob apparently thinks that if you take his picture it'll take away part of what little soul he has left.
Either that or he's a pussy.
Response #191
By: WitchHazel
Date: 11/19/01 11:00:17 AM
Couldn't anybody just GET THIS GUY DRUNK for once, and take his damn picture? How hard is it, people, to get one good picture??!?
Response #192
By: bob
Date: 11/19/01 2:00:05 PM
pretty damned hard, it would seem. either that or most people just respect my religious beliefs.
Response #193
By: WitchHazel
Date: 11/19/01 2:40:35 PM
Criminy. Looks like if I want a good picture, I'll have to come down there and do it MYSELF.
Response #194
By: sooz
Date: 11/19/01 4:57:55 PM
We've got a fold-out couch, and you're welcome to it.
Response #195
By: Gowan McGland
Date: 11/19/01 9:46:30 PM
See, asking for a good picture of Bob is like asking for a car made out of dung. It's feasibly possible, but upon execution, you'll wish you hadn't.
Response #196
By: WitchHazel
Date: 11/19/01 11:57:09 PM
Why is that? Should I be AFRAID of Bob? Uh uh. I don't think so.
Response #197
By: bob
Date: 11/20/01 9:29:24 AM
hahahahaha, use a disposable camera, that way if it breaks it wont cost much
Response #198
By: WitchHazel
Date: 11/20/01 10:37:05 AM
Maybe I should use a special filter, to filter your greatness, since I'm sure your halo will be shining directly into the camera lens.
Response #199
By: sooz
Date: 11/20/01 12:32:24 PM
Oh dear LORD, it's deep in here.
Response #200
By: bob
Date: 11/20/01 6:01:00 PM
no kidding, i think i am going to barf, and she was complimenting me. either that or she was insulting me, depends on how she said it.
Response #201
By: WitchHazel
Date: 11/20/01 8:37:34 PM
No hurling allowed.
Response #202
By: rorschach
Date: 11/29/01 10:38:12 AM
does it matter what you are about to hurl and at whom?
Response #203
By: WitchHazel
Date: 11/30/01 6:47:01 PM
Now that you mention it, Bob could you aim at Ror?