[Steve@3AM]

I noticed there was no link in the article to give "feedback" to the author or to send letters to the editor like there are in a lot of other on-line papers. Cowards! Also no address to physically send letters. I'll try to check further. I do think they need to get as many responses from us as possible. (To counteract all the probable responses they'll get from "the public" about how bad we are!)

PS Welcome to any good people who are here because of the article. Hope the boards help you as much as they have me!

[skaz]

I've read the article 4 times.  I think that I initially over reacted.  It could be a good thing.  This site has helped me in ways I have not fully comprehended. Some people will come here looking for something they won't find, i.e. drug trading.  What they will find is a community of MI people supporting and helping one another.
Sure, the article was shallow.  It was typical journalism.  Someone has a point to make, and they use anecdotal information in a way that supports their point.  Let CrazyBoards speak for itself.  The truth of the matter is self-evident.

[cattwomannc]

If you are interested in voicing your opinion, I found this on the NYTimes Website (waaaaaay at the bottom of the page, in veeeeerrrry small type) under "corrections"

The Times welcomes comments and suggestions, or complaints about errors that warrant correction. Messages on news coverage can be e-mailed to nytnews@nytimes.com or left toll-free at 1-888-NYT-NEWS (1-888-698-6397). Comments on editorials may be e-mailed to letters@nytimes.com or faxed to (212) 556-3622.

Readers dissatisfied with a response or concerned about the paper's journalistic integrity may reach the public editor, Byron Calame, at public@nytimes.com or (212) 556-7652.

[wakko926]

I would be totally devastated if CrazyBoards went away!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


can we discuss the nipple clamps more?

[Steve@3AM]

Thanks Catwoman - you beat me to it!

Lets all respond and see if we can cause a "Denial of Service attack"!
Hopefully, though, a bunch of thoughtful responses might get through to them - though I doubt it! Skaz is right. Why let accuracy of reporting get in the way of the opinion the author is trying to justify.

[Mack]

Quote

Fucking assholes. These types of articles have been a trend lately - I remember reading one a month or two ago about parties called "Pharming" or "Pharm-parties

Heh, I read about those. All I can say is what a bunch of dumbasses. "Wow I took a prozac and a topamax, I'm a real rebel now." Morons.

Anyway, here's my thoughts on the article that I posted elsewhere:

First, a quick explanation on journalists. Journalism is an interesting field, it really is. I think, if I had it to do over again, I'd like to have studied journalism and become a writer for a paper. Yet, keep in mind that journalists are not scientists. Whereas a scientist would have come up with a hypothesis and then set out to run experiments and gathered data to prove or disprove the hypothesis, a journalist (at least in this type of story) begins with a theory and then sets out to find evidence to support it.

CrazyBoards was mentioned twice, both times in a negative light. Once it was implied that the participants of the site offer leftover pills to one another via email.

Quote

The rules of the CrazyBoards Web site prohibit participants from openly offering or soliciting pharmaceuticals. But it is standard practice for people who visit the site to complain, tongue-in-cheek, that they simply "don't know what to do" with their leftovers.

The rest takes place by private e-mail. Sometimes, the person requesting the drugs already has a prescription, but because the medications are so expensive, receiving them free from other people has its merits.

Notice here there is no proof or evidence. There is no estimate of percentages that this occurs. Take a look at the words the writer uses:

"standard practice" : On what basis is that term applied? We don't know. Likely he used the search feature.
"Sometimes" : Now there's a specific term.

Quote

On patient-generated sites like CrazyBoards, fluency in the language of psychopharmacology is taken for granted. Dozens of drugs are referred to in passing by both brand name and generic, and no one is reticent about suggesting medications and dosage levels.

"Do you guys think that bumping up the dosage was a good idea, or should I have asked for a different drug?" someone who called herself Maggie asked earlier this month, saying she had told her doctor she wanted to double her daily intake of the antidepressant fluoxetine to 40 milligrams.

In another recent posting, a participant wrote that his supply of the beta blocker Inderal, acquired in Costa Rica, was running out. He uses the drug for panic attacks, he said, but he has not told his doctor about it. "What do I do/say to get her to prescribe me some?" he asked.

"CraZgirl," who said she was not currently taking any medications, received a resounding "yes" to her posting that asked, "If you wouldn't go on meds for yourself, is it reasonable to do it to keep your marriage intact?"

The point here is clear. The writer wants us to consider three things: 1. We are all fluent in the language of psychopharmocology 2. "no one is reticent about suggesting medications and dosage levels" and 3. We very much believe in the power of these medications to cure our ills.

To prove this he uses phrases from 3 posts. According to the front page our members have made nearly 74,000 posts (and that is after the new management issues, I think it was much more before). We'll be conservative and use 74,000. So he used 0.004% of the total site posts to make this inference.

Never once does he mention the fact that some people come here on the verge of suicide and find help, either from CrazyBoards folks or other websites listed here. Never once is the cathartic help of telling one's life story mentioned.

Now look at this quote, which caught my eye:

Quote

"If a person is having a problem in life, someone who is 42 might not know where to go - 'Do I need acupuncture, do I need a new haircut, do I need to read Suze Orman?' " said Casey Greenfield, 32, a writer in Los Angeles, referring to the personal-finance guru. "Someone my age will be like, 'Do I need to switch from Paxil to Prozac?' "

Have you heard anyone around here who thinks that way?

A person who is 42 might think they need a new haircut? If anything this article is an offense to the people of that age group. Are we really as damn dumb as this Casey Greenfield?

[reddog]

i intend to send to NYTimes about the article. the more feedback they get, the more likely it is they will either print a correction OR run a new article on the good that groups like ours do.

FYI, nipple clamps started on Zon's 'Dating an Aspie Guy' thread by yours truly.  please join us there, we're proud of our meandering thread.

[skaz]

cattwomannc, on Nov 16 2005, 10:23 AM, said:

If you are interested in voicing your opinion, I found this on the NYTimes Website (waaaaaay at the bottom of the page, in veeeeerrrry small type) under "corrections"

The Times welcomes comments and suggestions, or complaints about errors that warrant correction. Messages on news coverage can be e-mailed to nytnews@nytimes.com or left toll-free at 1-888-NYT-NEWS (1-888-698-6397). Comments on editorials may be e-mailed to letters@nytimes.com or faxed to (212) 556-3622.

Readers dissatisfied with a response or concerned about the paper's journalistic integrity may reach the public editor, Byron Calame, at public@nytimes.com or (212) 556-7652.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

cattwomannc:  Thanks for the info!  I just sent my reply to the editor.

[Steve@3AM]

Just sent long e-mail response to Amy Harmon, the author.
Hopefully I didn't SOUND like a total wacco! (I'm not total. I'm getting better! - to paraphrase Monty Python's Holy Grail!)

Suggested she re-visit the boards to get a better idea of what they are and the help they provide to our community/family. Maybe write a future article about the good side!

Prolly fell on deaf ears! I hope she has SOME ethical values since my e-mail has my real name!

[tigrre]

you can also go to http://www.bugmenot.com and get fake user-ids and passwords for sites such as the nytimes that have compulsory web registration.

[Steve@3AM]

Thanks! They even have "NY TIMES" as an example!

(NOW you tell me!!!!!)

[Fiona]

insideOut, on Nov 16 2005, 08:12 AM, said:

can someone copy and paste the article in here? Please? 

Or am I just being dumb and there's a way to get round the 'you must be registered to read the NYtimes' page that showed up when I clicked your link?

[Please don't anyone copy the whole article here.  We don't need copyright infringement issues with them.  I haven't had any problems being registered with them, and I normally don't do that. A.M. ]
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I didn't have any trouble reading the article from the link that VE gave.

Fiona

[ConfusedCat]

The article will two things 1.) Those who already believe people can get and abuse prescription drugs with ease will still believe it.  and 2.) Those who read the article and need help will follow the trail and come here and see the truth.

It isn't hard to pick out the most sensational items to make an article controversial.

If that is the type of "journalism" you like to submit to your readers it shows the depth of the writer providing it. SHALLOW.

CC~

[sepia]

The thing I have long disliked about the NYT (and most other papers) is that they do not set out to objectively report facts.  Rather, they treat the real world like an opportunity to practice literary criticism.  Develop a thesis, and support it.  Read the text, then synthesize a new argument.  It doesn't particularly matter whether or not the author of a 1914 war novel ever intended to crush same-sex marriage beneath his sadistic bootheel; what matters is whether or not the literary critic can sound bright in saying so. 

I was once taught that people in Communist Russia learned to read between the lines of the propagandist state-controlled media to divine what really happened.  My class was given exercises in discerning "true" photos from staged ones to bring the point home.  The media in North America isn't forcibly controlled by some almighty State, but it is not objecive.  Every journalist, photographer, and editor sets out to prove something.  Everyone has an agenda.  Not one of us is a perfect unreversed mirror image of the facts.  We must ALL learn to read between the lines. 

I will be submitting a complaint -- protest is part of my nature -- but I'm also not taking this article too personally.  Rare is the journalist who knows what s/he is talking about.  This is unacceptable, but it is unlikely to change. 


Privacy-wise, CB is like a support group that meets in a storefront window.  If we put up brown paper for privacy, those who need us will never find us.  As such, we continue to meet in plain view, though the occasional voyeur may pass by.  To preserve anonymity (for those who feel it important), we urge you to dress uncharacteristically, keep your mask on, and don't give anyone a roadmap to follow you home.  Common sense should keep you safe. 

I personally recommend the following measures:
NO REAL NAMES.  Not you, not your ex, not your kids, not the town where you were born.  And NO LAST NAMES EVER, unless you're okay with being located in the real world.  Small businesspeople, etc tend to care less about being "tracked" by their online friends.
NO PINPOINT LOCATIONS.  It's okay to say you live in NY, for example, because there are millions of people there, but don't tell us you live in Dapp AB, population twenty-three (likely including some dogs), and expect true anonymity if the postman comes here over Prozac. 
FUDGE THE DETAILS.  We don't mean for you to lie about everything, but it's a good idea to change little identifiers around now and again.  If you want to mention the make of your car for literary effect, choose another car in the same class.  If you're talking about coming home, say you went down the steps to your apartment, rather than climbing to your upper duplex.  If it isn't important but could be used to identify you, you might want to change some of these details.  We don't want you to feel like you have to lie -- you don't -- but we do want you to feel safe.
NO NUMBERS.  Give someone your DOB and your ZIP code, and someone smart can find you.  NO ZIP CODES falls under NO PINPOINT LOCATIONS, but watch birthdays and such too, kay?  Yours, your so's, your kids'... birthdates are trackable by the intelligent & fixated, with a few other details.
DO NOT GIVE OUT YOUR ADDRESS to anyone.  ANYONE.  I recommend procuring a PO box or something if you want to mail things via snail mail to internet friends.
DO NOT GIVE OUT YOUR HOME PHONE NUMBER unless you have a very good reason for it.  NEVER put it in a public place (like the board or chat), ONLY in private communication, like email or PM.  Cell phones are less risky, but still, ONLY SHARE THIS INFO PRIVATELY, NOT PUBLICLY.
PICTURES are iffy.  If you do not want to be identified, I advise against sharing them.  If you're a little freer, then share away.  Pictures won't do anything to help someone find you in the great ocean of global humanity, but if you do give out personal location data, a picture would make it easier for a stalker to identify you. 

There are probably a few other personal security preferences I've forgotten, but these are the basics.  No names, no numbers, no locations, and probably no pictures.  This is my idea of common sense.  Others may disagree.  If you think my suggestions are useful, use them.

[zsandoz]

this is obviously a stupid article that goes from legitimate examples (ritalin, adderall, benzos) to cite some examples from this board that have no relevance to the point (i thought) they were trying to make, except maybe the ordering the meds from costa rica thing but even that is a stretch since inderal isnt exactly known for its abuse potential. 

the point that the patient should be informed in decision making processes with their doctors is actually a positive thing, not a negative thing as this article really veers off course in trying to say.

but hey like any people doing something worthwhile that we want availible to everyone (and advertising is a nice extra!!), we should know that even "bad" press is good press 

[femmesdelight]

[Steve@3AM]

LMNOP -

So VERY well said! Glad you are also responding to the Times. Much more rational than my response! I was going to say that it was a little bit more paranoid than me, but then considering the situations that some people have I think ALL your comments are spot on.

Even I am going to delete the city from my personal info - even though I like having that info about people! I will be sorry if we add more "distance" among ourselves because of this, but I guess that's life under the media microscope.

[Steve@3AM]

FemmesDelight -

You'll find cyberhugs here if you want and need them!
You'll find straight talk and information if that's what you're looking for. And you'll find a lot of personal opinions and stories that can entertain (Read the "Dude" thread!) or can help you see and clarify your own situation.

Hope you find what you want and need here. Feel free to post more info on the "intro" thread. And WELCOME!

[Velvet Elvis]

As long as we get more new users than curious FDA agents I'm happy, I guess.

/me waves to new people and wanders off in search of a coffee pot that doesn't have stuff growing in it.

[Velvet Elvis]

Interviews were done several months ago with the old admins still in place.

They talked to several people who were not quoted.  I personally wasn't aware of it until yesterday.