Cerberus

Inmate
  • Content count

    2548
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Cerberus

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Gender
    male
  • Location
    The Abyssal Inn

Recent Profile Visitors

3698 profile views
  1. Okay, fair enough. I do indeed recognize that you've been dealt a bad hand and that you have MI challenges that are making your life hellish. You're in good company here at CB. We understand. We totally get the thing about the gabapentin side-effects and having to put up with side effects just to get the slightest relief from the mental pain and misery. We hear you, and can tell you're unhappy, and we know how hard you must be struggling to get through every day. We're not going to coddle you, because we don't do that here, and you don't want that anyway. You want a hand up so you can keep going under your own power. Good for you. But why do you say "I could have"? Why waste the time being self-critical? What's stopping you from being a boot-strapper now? Do you think you're too far gone to pull yourself up? You're not. The very fact that you can imagine doing so tells us you're not. So it's time to figure out exactly what it is that is standing in your way - exactly what obstacle prevents you from being that person who takes his healing into his own hands. Blaming gets you absolutely nowhere - blaming your father, blaming yourself, blaming others who are failing, blaming others who are succeeding, blaming the "system" - none of it moves you one millimeter forward. But you can move forward any time you want, just by deciding to take the step yourself. So, how about it?
  2. Your second paragraph is much better from a rhetorical standpoint and makes far more persuasive arguments without any need to reference his race or ethnicity. Very good. Your third paragraph, however, tells us that the contempt you claim to have for the mentally ill who are not "taking action" (as you vaguely define it) is in fact self-contempt projected on those around you. I am sorry you feel this way. There is no need. If you believe that the key to overcoming mental illness is to become an active participant in your own care and to seek out both medical and therapeutic solutions, then CrazyBoards is absolutely the place to be because that is our mantra. We encourage everyone here to do exactly that. We hear that you are suffering, and how badly, though I should tell you that this isn't the Suffering Olympics here, and if you're trying to out-suffer some of our members you've got a lo-o-o-ong way to go. I, for one, haven't suffered nearly as badly as some here, but let's take my personal example: I have fought crushing treatment-resistant Major Depressive Disorder with Dysthymia (Double Depression) for 40 years, often so bad that I can't get out of bed for days, and often beg God to kill me though I dare not take my own life because of the trauma it would inflict on my family. On top of this, I get to deal with Tourette's Syndrome and Hemiplegic Migraine, and have had to live a life as an autistic with Asperger's Syndrome in a world of neurotypicals who have misunderstood, marginalized, persecuted and assaulted me. Yet I have managed to hold down a full-time job in the public sector for 25 years, take a handful of meds every day as prescribed and deal with the side effects, went through 20 years of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, and raised two kids in spite of a hard divorce not of my choosing. I've endured repeated surgeries for sciatica that have made it practically impossible for me to walk or to sleep - my flesh feels like it gets pierced with knives, not pricked with needles. Oh, and I nearly died of AIDS two years ago, and I'm alive now and healthy because I'm fighting back and because the fictional "bubble" you describe that protects AIDS patients does not exist. I live alone and have to take care of myself. I have a mentally numb inner space that is black as India ink and would make yours feel like Disneyland. And I am in awe of some of the other members on here who have survived and overcome much worse than I have. To wit: Do not presume to understand, let alone judge, the strength or weakness of anyone here based on your own self-assessment. I know I may seem hard on you, but I would much rather be helping you with your own personal struggle than defending the rest of the members here against your un-called-for denigration of those taking temporary advantage of the benefit that this place affords them as a safe space to be Mentally Interesting. As, ironically, are you. Any time you want to step up and take your real problems by the horns, we're here for you, and we will help. I suggest that you split off these concerns from your strictly political discussion and either shift them to a more targeted forum, or start a new thread on one of our forums related to your MI issues. If you would like a Moderator to assist with moving any content, please feel free to contact any one of us.
  3. madmax - It is reasonable to conclude that if a murder has taken place in your building, you have a reasonable right to be concerned for your own safety and thus it becomes at least peripherally your business. Our society, however, has established a system of laws and law enforcement to manage such threats, which prevents the anarchy of individuals having to take matters into their own hands based on uninformed fear, and to prevent public panic and paranoia. The fact that police visited you should be a source of reassurance to you rather than concern, because it indicates that the system has been engaged in this instance to isolate the offender and protect others from further threat. At some point we have to place a level of trust in that system to defend us, or we return to a state of shooting everyone who knocks on the door and asking questions later. If the police believed that there were a clear and present danger to anyone else in the building, they would have taken steps to secure the residents until the building became safe. The fact that they didn't tells you that they did not believe such a threat existed based on their knowledge of the facts. I know it's easier said than done, sometimes, but try not to worry. It might help to take a sheet of paper, mark out two columns, on one side write down the reasons you believe you have to be concerned, and on the other side write down the logical arguments against those reasons and see how they balance out. We can help you with the second side if you need it.
  4. Tsk. The poor workman alway blames his tools. The state of your tablet is immaterial. Nothing you posted since my last reply addressed my actual arguments, which stand unchallenged. Ironically, my political philosophy aligns with yours very closely. I, too, was deeply disappointed with the failure of the Obama Administration to deliver on a number of progressive ideals. The difference is that I can see that a man with both hands tied behind his back by a Republican-controlled House of Representatives and later a Republican-led Senate led by a man I am ashamed to call a Kentuckian, both damned and determined to stonewall him at every turn, were the principal cause. My disgust lies not with the President, but with the American people, who continue to elect the imbeciles who are leading them to ruin faster than Nero could burn Rome. Case in point: the recent election. But your beef isn't really with President Obama, as you prove three posts up when (evidently in spite of feeling pricked by needles) you are able to at length lambast presidents from Woodrow Wilson on down the line about the American military/industrial complex and foreign policy, culminating with the ubiquitous -and illogical - blame-it-all-on-the-current-president conclusion arrived at by the very same sort of people who just elected Donald Trump. Add to which, rather than apologizing for your unapologetically racist language, you have the brass balls to tell people here that anybody who needs a safe space is a weakling. Our User Agreement defines our code of conduct rather broadly: 1. Don't Be A Jerk. How do we know if a member is being a jerk? If a member is being a bigger asshole than the Mods, the member is being a jerk, and is in violation of the User Agreement. This has worked well for CB for more than a decade now. The whole Moderating Team is in agreement that using racist language makes one a Jerk. Capice? Blather on all you want about the injustice of the political world, for all the good it will do you. If you post illogical nonsense, expect to have your ass handed to you on a plate, because people here know how to use their brains. But whatever you post, do it with a civil tongue in your head. Do not test us further. Cerberus Moderator
  5. madmax - I took a bachelor's degree in journalism. News is news is news. What happens happens, and good things happen with greater frequency than terrible things. But we're human beings, who react to the fight/flee/freeze instinct built into our animal bodies. Fear sets this off. The media makes its money by triggering us to do something. Good things don't trigger us. Bad things do. Like fear. For this reason, the media focuses largely on the bad news. At the base level, our desire to know more (i.e., pay more to consume more media) is to gain more information for self-preservation. But higher up the chain, advertisers want us to fear bad things happening if we don't buy certain products, politicians want us to fear bad things happening if we don't give them power, even good agencies want us to fear bad things happening if we don't donate to their causes. This can even masquerade as good news - "Look at how we saved all these starving children in Sudan! What a pity the rest will die horribly without your help... "[cue Sarah MacLaughlan "In the Eyes of an Angel"] Madmax, I know that you have a tendency to look darkly at the world and see threats all around you. You are not wrong to point out that the world is a place where dangers exist and bad things do happen. But it is very important to understand that the mainstream news media is not an accurate representation of the world as it actually is. I am telling you this a trained journalist. The news media are gatekeepers of the stories that get passed on to the public, and those stories, for a number of reasons, are heavily tilted toward the bad news. The reasons for this are not all nefarious. Often it is the bad news that we need to know about so we can take care of ourselves and our loved ones. If we were gazelles, it would not be as useful to our herd for a signal to pass among us that "Rochelle had an uneventful sip at the watering hole this morning" as it would for a signal to pass among us that "Boris just reported a lioness lying in wait at the watering hole; vultures are now circling over Boris' last known position." But news like Rochelle's is far more common than new like the report about Boris. For this reason, we often recommend that members who experience depression, obsessive negative thought patterns, psychosis, or possible paranoia, consider avoiding frequently reading or watching the news. It is unavoidably going to be a downer, with occasional exceptions. There are, however, alternatives. If you will go to the Depression Forum, you will find a pinned topic, second from the top, titled REQUIRED READING - RELOADED. It contains links to good-news-only news portals from around the English-speaking world. (Also cross-posted in the Other-Crap: I Got The Good Stuff Here Forum.) I encourage you to go there and graze, and see if it doesn't help you feel better. Because the world is glorious. Cerberus BA Journalism, 1989
  6. The limited effort you have put into your argument isn't going to get you much gain, either, because it's not convincing in the slightest. Copyright Law not only does not provide for "infinite gain", it establishes a finite limit on the time in which a copyright holder may exclusively gain the benefit of the work. Plus, what do you mean by "limited effort"? This sounds suspiciously like the muttering of someone who hasn't got a clue how difficult it is to create value in content, or how to value talent or creativity. "Stacked too heavily in favour of the creators"? As opposed to whom? Who else other than the creators has an inherent right to benefit from that which is created? You? If I dig a diamond out of the ground, how much time would you have pass before you should gain the right to sell my diamond? I think you'll find that Copyright Law allows a reasonable license intended for the life of a creator plus a certain period for the benefit of his or her heirs before the work enters the public domain. As it should. Edited to add: Oh, and although Gearhead is doing a splendid job of handing you your ass in a bag over the racism issue, I just can't help reviewing your own words here: So by the time you did view it as racist, meaning that you do now see that it is, you are now used to it. So you are now used to being racist. And you hate the President (presumably because of his race) too much to care whether your words are racist, so your words are therefore not only willfully racist, but also hate-speech. Be very, very, very careful what you say next. You know, nestor, in Greek mythology, Nestor was an Argonaut, Nestor of Gerenia, who was respected by the other Argonauts for his age and his experience, though his advice was always accompanied by humor at his own expense because he couldn't offer it without telling tales about himself. We're not laughing.
  7. Very well. Drawing from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's Prescribing Information Sheet for Abilify, we find that: ABILIFY has been evaluated for safety in 13,543 adult patients who participated in multiple-dose, clinical trials in schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, major depressive disorder, Dementia of the Alzheimer’s type, Parkinson’s disease, and alcoholism, and who had approximately 7619 patient-years of exposure to oral ABILIFY and 749 patients with exposure to ABILIFY injection. A total of 3390 patients were treated with oral ABILIFY for at least 180 days and 1933 patients treated with oral ABILIFY had at least 1 year of exposure. Which is to say that Abilify underwent significant trials including persons with identified Parkinson's disease and was still found to be safe and effective. This is the only reference to Parkinson's Disease in the document. There is, however, a difference between Parkinson's Disease and parkinsonism, which can be an extrapyramidal side-effect of several of the atypical neuroleptic antipsychotics, and not limited to or especially linked to Abilify. Perhaps you are referring to Parkinsonism above when you say that you hope it's "not real Parkinson's". The problem is that researchers do not yet know whether the extrapyramidal side effects are caused in some way by the antipsychotics, or whether the medications are in some way simply unmasking preexisting Parkinson's Disease. Here is a brief rundown on drug-induced parkinsonism from MedLine. The takeaway message from all of the resources I've found so far is that A) Abilify does not cause Parkinson's Disease; B) Abilify is safe and effective; C) Case studies of individuals who have presented with parkinsonism suspected to be caused by atypical neuroleptic antipsychotics are 1. rare, 2. too few to be determinatively causal, 3. not confined to Abilify, and 4. do not necessarily consider all possible factors (for instance, one study involved two veterans of Gulf War age, yet made no mention of the fact that veteran status is an identified risk factor for Parkinson's Disease). I truly hope that you are, indeed, dealing with a temporary and reversible bout with parkinsonism rather than actual Parkinson's Disease. If you find that your symptoms mitigate without Abilify, then by all means inform your doctor of this. But the research - and you did ask for us to look into it - very clearly establishes that the atypical neuroleptic antipsychotics including Abilify are, with very rare and unverified exceptions, safe and effective in the treatment of a number of conditions. And if they do have some negative side-effects, so do all of our psychoactive medications. That is not news to anybody here. We are all quite, quite aware that we each have to make a personal decision about medication, and "Which Sucks Less?" is pretty much our motto. We are far from "ignorant" about what we are taking and for you to come here and "warn us all" shows nothing but gross presumption. I believe we have sufficiently addressed your original comment. If you have other questions for the group, please start your own thread and allow this thread to return to the topic of the Original Post. Cerberus Moderator
  8. nestor - The Copyright Law of the United States (Title 17) has been refined by various administrations over many decades since 1783 and is not, in any sense, a draconian set of regulations. Rather, Copyright Law protects the intellectual property rights of the creators of works so that they can make a living by creating works that benefit society. It is in the interest of society at large to encourage and enable creators of intellectual property to produce such works. Many who decry Copyright Law as in some way "unfair" are in fact complaining that they simply aren't allowed to steal the hard work of other people for their own purposes, or enjoy the results of that work without paying a fair and reasonable compensation. They overlook the point that without the protection of Copyright Law, the creative people who produce the books, music, art, movies and other content could not afford do spend their time doing so, and there would be no content to consume. By including a claim that President Obama and Secretary Clinton introduced "draconian copyright laws" you clearly make a demonstrably false assertion (the President, as chief of the Executive Branch, has no power or function to introduce new laws to Congress, and in her role as Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton had even less ability to do so) and thereby undermine your own credibility for the rest of your arguments, already severely undercut by your choice of inflammatory propagandist rhetoric from the very first word. You will find that at CrazyBoards, we spend a lot of time looking up actual facts about our MI conditions, medications, and treatments. Fact-checking is extremely important here. That makes us predisposed to look up actual facts about other things as well. We are not, in fact, crazy, and we don't put up with a lot of crazy talk. Just saying.
  9. I am sorry for your struggle with Parkinson's Disease. I have watched the toll it has taken on members of my own family. But did Abilify give you Parkinson's? No. That is not a fact. Even in this Trumpian age when Truth is defined as "that which is spoken loudest", here at CrazyBoards we stand firmly by Medical Science and the Scientific Method. Let us, accordingly, review the actual facts regarding the known or suspected causes of Parkinson's Disease to date, as expressed by such sources as the Mayo Clinic, the Michael J. Fox Foundation For Parkinson's Research, and the Parkinson's Disease Foundation. The causes of Parkinson's Disease (PD) are poorly understood by medical science, but are thought to be a combination of genetic and environmental factors. There are currently no known biomarkers to test for future onset of PD. Among the leading candidates for environmental factors are pesticides and the compound MPTP (methylphenyltetrahydropyridine), which is not part of the composition of Abilify. None of the major research hubs on PD references or recognizes the existence of "drug-related Parkinson's". It is believed that both genetic and environmental factors must be present to result in onset of PD symptoms. The PD research community largely concurs that "it is generally impossible to determine what specifically caused an individual's Parkinson's disease." Therefore, it is impossible to say that Abilify caused your illness (or anyone else's). Abilify is, in fact, widely recommended and prescribed as safe and effective in the treatment of milder cases of PD. Parkinson's Disease is not listed as a known or possible side-effect of Abilify on the Prescribing Information Sheet. If Abilify had the possibility of causing an incurable and ultimately fatal degenerative illness, the FDA would not have approved it as safe and effective for public sale. Just because a substance that one ingests may possibly have a negative effect on one does not make it a poison. Sugar rots my teeth and fattens my belly; its side-effects are evident, but it isn't poison. Conversely, ingesting too much of just about anything can be bad for you - drink too much distilled water at one time and you can actually die of water poisoning by over-diluting your electrolytes to the point that your body can't cope. I'm afraid far, far too many of us here owe our continued time among the living to the medicines that ease our pain, shush the voices, stop our nightmares, silence the bombs, make the germs okay, and shine a light in the dark, to listen to someone gush bilge about how bad they are. If you will be open-minded, we might be able to help you discover treatments you hadn't considered to help you bear your burden more lightly. If you insist, however, on barking into the wind here, I'm sure you'll find like minds... somewhere else. If so, Good-day.
  10. Madmax, you say that you don't understand what is so negative about your comment, which you perceive as a compliment. Okay, let's take it from there. The whole issue is one of perception. Perception is always a tricky business because each of us is trapped within our own head and cannot easily perceive what the other person is perceiving. We can only accept the clues given to us by the other person, whether overtly by word of plain expression, or subtly, by nuance and body language. Topics that do not suggest a potential judgment regarding some aspect of the other individual - the weather, for instance - are generally safe for discussion with strangers. There is no potential psychological threat-of-conflict. The other person is not faced with the possibility of feeling him- or herself placed in an inferior position, and feels no need to defend. Other topics, as HAL9000 relates above, are fraught with potential for conflict: Religion? If a statement of yours conflicts with a belief of the other person's, either you or they must be wrong = bad. Politics? If your stand on an issue or candidate butts heads with the other person's, then you and/or your candidate represent a real potential threat to the way the other person wants to live his or her life = bad. Sex? If the other person is not a close friend or intimate companion of yours, discussion of sex, by definition a private and intimate matter, requires that the other person admit you to a more inner part of their personal space than is normally allowed for strangers or acquantances = bad. Or you might be unattractive to them/creepy/they might be a rape victim = bad. Or in this case, the addition of the mention of her age of 40, in direct contradiction of the infinite wisdom that a gentleman never asks a lady about her age, may have made her feel old/marked you as a boor = bad. One way or the other, it was not so much the content, but your "angle of approach" that led to the negative result. You must learn to judge when and whether a given comment from you will be well-placed in a given situation with a given target individual. I know that can be a tall order, God knows, because I'm an Aspie and I walk around with my foot two inches from my mouth at all times. Even after 50 years of learning the hard way what is and isn't appropriate to say to whom, I still muck it up sometimes. But don't beat yourself up about it. In my estimation, you had about a 50/50 chance of her understanding what you were trying to say and taking the compliment to start with. She might have still thought it creepy coming from someone she didn't know, but at least she would have understood the joke. I always take a little comfort from a quote from Lucy VanPelt (Linus' sister from Peanuts): "If you walk around watching every word you say, you'll never get much said."
  11. All - Blatantly evading a temporary ban on this site gets you a perma-ban. No exceptions. Think of it as survival of the wisest. Thread closed.
  12. The other side of that coin is that CNN this month reported that U.S. cases of mumps are at a ten-year high. Anti-vaxxers are simply creating havens for disease to incubate within the population.
  13. Closure - From the very beginning, my genetics have lurked in the back of my mind as a great fear for my two children. It didn't occur to me to worry about it before conception; their mother and I wanted both of them very much. But as they grew I found myself watching them intently for any sign that my Autism, MDD, Tourette's, Anxiety, migraine, and my family's penchant for ADHD and Social Anxiety Disorder was about to emerge. When I saw those signs, I tried to be careful to ask myself whether I was seeing something real or something I was expecting to see. After a very few years and a few tests, I knew I wasn't imagining things. Time spent here on CB had taught me what to look for and how to look for it, and I had seen it. I agonized over what to tell them, especially about their Autistic traits, because their mother was in full-blown denial that anything whatsoever was wrong in her children's minds. They were just going through "growing phases", then "adolescent phases", then "teen phases". The fact that she and I were divorced (her decision, not mine) made it doubly difficult because although we had agreed to co-parent, she wasn't trying to sync her playbook with mine. As an Aspie, I did the only thing I could with my kids - I taught them to be rationalists. I taught them to try to intercept their emotions and try to identify them, even though I was shite at doing it myself. (Fortunately, they had the benefit of their mother's genes also, and neither is as far along the Spectrum as I am.) By the time they hit the Age of Reason (about 7-8) I tried to give them Cognitive Behavioral Therapy skills that I had to wait 20 years to learn so that they could face the demons when they first appeared. And then, when I thought they had a basic set of skills, I started to gently and - God, I hoped - non-threateningly explain why they were different, and why Dad sometimes had problems. I felt that I owed them an explanation for my behavior at the very least, in the hope that they would understand rather than fear me. My son received it better than my daughter, who had bought into her mother's version more thoroughly, and was two years the younger. My son found some answers to questions he had been having about himself in what I told him. I quietly gave them tests at home, both formally diagnostic and non-diagnostic, to try to get a sense of how they were developing. It's been rocky. I thought we were doing quite well until my son hit college, and then he stumbled badly once he was away from the regular support of home. MDD began to paralyze him and he became non-compliant with his meds. He's lost a full semester of effort because of it. A number of times over the last few years, I've had to intervene with my daughter to talk her down from major anxiety attacks; she's now on meds and in therapy. Earlier this year she scared the Santaclausloving shit out of us by getting caught stealing a bottle of cough syrup from a local drugstore. Mercifully, there has been no continuance of that behavior and she does not appear after several months to have acquired an addiction. Now we talk openly about mental health issues. I tell them somewhat about mine, although I do not reveal the utter crushing blackness and despair I endure. They know that I have felt the call of suicide before; I told them because they have both been brave enough to tell me that it has called to them, reports that united me and their mother in immediate decisions to action. I let them know that I would never now consider ending my own life. Which is, of course, a black lie. I have every intention of ending my own existence someday, when the last spark of hope is extinguished and the pain finally overcomes my will to endure. But not while they are young. Never while they are young.
  14. Folks, let's not get ahead of ourselves. The two links that the OP cites are not studies. The first is a case report - a sampling of one, which is no sampling at all - and the second is an article in which Dr. Horowitz provides his vernacular observations (i.e., opinions) from his practice in which he is apparently a specialist and advocate in the treatment of Lyme Disease - methinks I detect a shade of bias in his reporting. Changes in treatment methodology happen when case reports and clinical observations lead to carefully structured and peer-reviewed science. Again, these are not studies. For Dr. Horowitz to write, "we should suspect Lyme" when people present with symptoms of schizophrenia is out of balance. If the patient meets the DSM-V criteria for schizophrenia, we should suspect schizophrenia, and investigate as well whether the patient might also have had a tick bite, rather than treat for Lyme first and schizophrenia second. I would dearly, dearly love for someone to find an easy fix for treatment-resistant MDD, but I'm not going to ditch my meds just because some MD said a couple of his patients felt better after amoxicillin cleared up their miserable sinus infection.
  15. Okay, whoa there, cowboy. I know the pitcher of Kool-Aid they're pouring looks really delicious, but I'd read the ingredients on the package first if I were you. The whole thing is shaky as an NFL stadium built on stilts. The organization, first of all, calls itself The Singularity Group, which suggests ties to the think-tank predicting that artificial intelligences are going to surpass mankind sometime in the next 30 years. They are dressing up the philosophies of Spinoza (which they refer to as a religion founded in 1677) with psychobabble and call it "Neuro-Spinozism a.k.a. Athenism (2016)". That is to say, a belief system freshly minted this year. So it only took 339 years for the logic of it all to sink in. Ah, but the logic - evidently, it's all based on logic. If we would only appreciate the logical patterns that create everything around us, all the ills of humanity would evaporate. For instance, if we could appreciate the logical constructions that produce beauty, or the logic that produces an emotional reaction, say, the perfectly logical workings of the mind and endocrine system that result in falling in love, then all our troubles will be over. I call shenanigans on this. They seem to claim that logical thinking (which "must not be seen as cold and hard") is the essence of positive thinking, while at the same time saying that it is vital that we understand the patterns that hold together the fabric of reality. I don't know about any of you, but every time I perform that mental exercise, my logical mind follows a very logical path to the Energy Death At The End Of The Universe and the Utter Hopelessness Of Everything. Every. single. fucking. time. (Science, by the way, either argues that the Universe will end in a Big Fizzle or a Big Crunch. The laws of physics allow for no up-side so far as we can tell.) But back to the video above. Note that the people in it are all more or less twenty-somethings a tad too eager to embrace what is "out there." They do, to be fair, make occasional useful observations: "I think people should still be skeptical." Less useful: "How much more intelligent are you?" "Like, a hundred fold?" (Albert, IQ: 141) Let's do a little math. If Albert's IQ was 141 before he started this radical path of willing dissociation, wearing a "God Helmet" to alter his mental states with magnetism (no, really) and coolly pondering the logical structure of his erection, then afterward he would have an IQ of 14,100. Indeed, that was the Albert supposedly being filmed at that moment. Or a collossal douche with a poorly grown goatee. One or the other. I leave the determination to you. Then there's the dude to goes to Africa, and you see a caption something like "World's Greatest Gamer Goes To Fight Ebola". It could just as easily have read "World's Most Prominent Imbecile Walks Around A Minefield Blindfolded". But the point is, the vanguard of this "new paradigm" they expect us all to Ooh and jump aboard is none other than the World's Greatest Gamer. The bottom line is that the theory behind this "incredible revelation" is b-o-o-o-o-o-gus. It suggests that dissociation is a good thing. It suggests that altering one's mental states by alternative methods than drugs is in some way different than altering one's mental states with drugs, and apparently has studied doing so with a magnetic "God Helmet" (not a few of the participants in the video look like they're high as a NASA weather balloon). It makes logical claims with pseudo-logic and false premises that undermine the entire franchise. If you accept the hooey up front, it all sounds great, but you have to watch out. Case in point: A. Nellie is an elephant. B. Nellie is pink. C. Therefore, elephants are pink. Logically sound, right? Wrong. Elephants aren't pink. Wats, I'm not trying to burst your balloon or drag you down from feeling good. But I would hate to see you pursue such a blatantly false hope in your search for healing and mental health. Cerberus