User talk:Scuro

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Scuro, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Regards, Accurizer 00:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

1 antipsych is NOT scientology
2 they eat at the same table
3 Breggin
4 QW
5 me a Scientologist?
6 Methylphenidate
7 your recent deletions
8 In the spirit of Wikipedia
9 User page
10 Thank you!
11 Barnstar

[edit] antipsych is NOT scientology

I see you have been editing psychiatry-related, controversial articles. I wonder if you know that the views of secular critics of psychichiatry are VERY DIFFERENT to the views of religious or fringe groups. Our Weltanschauung is wholly different.

I will give you a couple of examples. Scientologists maintain that World War II, the Bosnia war and even September 11 were caused by psychiatrists; and that evil psychiatrists caused the universe’s mess trillions of years ago (see e.g., Space opera in Scientology doctrine). NOBODY I know in the psychiatric survivor movement, or in the critical literature by professionals that I have read, hold such views.

Please read the Antipsychiatry article and compare it with the Scientology and psychiatry and Psychiatry: An Industry of Death to see the big difference! 189.140.202.203 17:00, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

The two groups do have different beliefs, but do they not share the same roots and hold very similar beliefs about mental disorders? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Scuro (talk • contribs).

Hi Scuro: You posted a message in the wrong place, my main user page. I just moved it to the right one.

As to your questions, the roots are different. Classic antipsychiatrists like David Cooper and Ronald Laing had ties with the political left of the 1960s. Scientology on the other hand started as a mix of Aleister Crowley’s magic, Freud’s abreaction therapy and science-fiction fantasies.

The beliefs are also different. Scientologists are religiously committed to never take psychiatric drugs. Not even the most radical and prolific critic of psychiatry, Thomas Szasz, holds such commitment. Szasz even published a book about the right of adults to take illegal drugs. Personally, though I’m active in debunking involuntary psychiatry, once in a while I take Valium to get some sleep. A scientologist would never do that on principle.

Another major difference is the total rejection of psychology by scientologists. No antipsychiatry activist I know reaches that extreme! I could go on and on to mention more differences. But the above gives you the picture.

I see you are a newcomer to Wikipedia. Have fun! :) 189.140.202.203 23:48, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I moved your post here so that you may respond to my posts here.

So I guess if I post here you can read it. Can others read it also? What if someone else sends me a message. Does it all stay on this page?

Thanks for that information by the way, there should be a Wiki article on the difference between Scientology and Antipsychiatry. It gets confusing. Szasz helped found the CCHR, did he not? I'm assuming he was a scientologist, has he broken from Scientology now?

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Scuro (talk • contribs).

Wikipedians discuss issues in their talk pages; some of them prefer to do it in a single talk page in order not to break the arguments in twain. If you continue to edit in WP you may receive here messages from other editors on other topics.

Szasz never was a scientologist, as you can read in the WP article and here. He is only a nominal “founder” of CCHR. In real life Szasz has never had any power whatsoever in an organization ruled by faithful scientologists. In fact, many of Szasz’ views are pretty heretical (e.g., “our right to drugs”) and even evil for the church’s dogmas (e.g., his belief that there is no post-mortem survival for the human psyche). But he has not broken with CCHR and probably never will.

Strange bedfellows… 189.140.202.203 01:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] they eat at the same table

When you talk of the ICSPP, Szasz, Scientology, Breggin, Baughman, Mindfreedom et al,...really you can say they are all different, and they are. Szasz denies he ever was a scientologist while Baughman works for them. Breggin may have been but not since the 70's. ICSPP is not linked with Scientology yet the CCHR is. One thing for certain, the message is basically the same when it comes to Psychology or Psychiatry. One may be more extreme but they all speak with the same voice. More interestingly, one creates content for the other, and the other broadcast it. It doesn't matter if the broadcaster or the content creator are affiliated to scientology or not. They share. They work together. They go to protests together. They show up at the same awards nights and fight the same battles. DO SSRI's make people commit suicide? You know which side the antipsychs and scientology are always going to be on...and that is the same side.

--Scuro 05:48, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Breggin

Hi Scuro. I sense (and share) you frustration with Ombudsman's unilateral editing style on the Peter Breggin article. Unfortunately Ombudsman has a history in tendacious editing on subjects critical to medicine and psychiatry. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cesar Tort and Ombudsman vs others. I urge you to continue to edit in a collaborative manner and do not resort to edit warring, instead leave me to deal with him. He is on an indefinate probations and "may be banned by any administrator for good cause from any article concerning a medical subject which he disrupts by tendentious editing". He is well on his way towards that. and if he continues along these lines I will invoke that ruling.

In the meantime, would you mind considering reworking the new section on Columbine. As it is, I don't really understand the direct relevence to Breggin. The "infamous Colombine trial" is not sufficient to inform a non expert in the subject as to what you are talking about. The quote from the judge appear to me to be completely unrelated to Breggin. We also have to be careful of due balance in a WP:BLP, as the article is growing to the extent that the majority of it is examples of criticism of his credibility. While its important that these issues are mentioned, its also imperative that we don't pile on by listing every example of criticism. Thanks Rockpocket 21:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I have been a little frustrated by his editing. But I guess that is to be expected. When one takes the time to carefully word and edit something and then someone changes it so that it's meaning has been significantly altered, frustration sets in. So at that point I thought it was important to let history and the courts show us who Breggin is. How can one edit that? In court he has failed both the Frye and Daubert standard which are scientific standards.

The Columbine case was remarkable because it looks like Breggin hadn't even made an effort to look at any of the evidence. The killers had made videos and there was all sorts of other evidence yet Breggin simply made his report ignoring this evidence. Is that important to know? I think it is when Breggin is cited as an expert witness. How should I handle that Colombine section?

--Scuro 23:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, I agree the criticism of his credibility is notable, its just that we should be concise and to the point; long quotes from judges or scene setting isn't really directly relevent to the simple fact that his testimony failed legal standards. Whats more, the more simple and to the point you can make it, the more difficult it becomes for supporters to justify removing it. So, something along the lines of "In the a case relating to the Columbine High School massacre (it would be better of you could be more specific about what the case was about, I don't know which case it actually was), Breggin's evidence was criticized by the judge for failing the Frye Standard. (ref) appropriate links provides the reader with the context they need to understand the details without us expanding on them here. Rockpocket 09:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] QW

Thanks for your contribution over at QW. Any new eyes looking over the discussion are appriciated. Shot info 08:50, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

You have put a lot of work into that. Sometimes it's nice when others see and recognize your efforts. The other guy is way off base. --Scuro 17:09, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, it would seem that my discussions have fallen on deaf ears over in QW there as the proponents of "Cannot change" have reverted my changes. Unfortunately I will be off the air for a couple of weeks due to some issues out in the real world (tm). If you could take the time to comment over there, I know other editors would appriciate the fresh eyes. Thanks Shot info 05:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] me a Scientologist?

Seems like you are doing some good things around WP. I do wonder if you are a Scientologist with an ax to grind, however, I think you're contributions are overall helpful. Yeago 02:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I try to keep my posts very honest and add good things to Wiki. I have an extensive background in dealing with ADHD and hope to share some of that knowledge over time. Sure I have slant...a bias, and as you guessed I'm no fan of the Scientology or the Anti-Psych stance on ADHD. I couldn't care less about their religion. For the record, I've never had anything to do with Scientology. The trick for me is to get good information posted without inserting my bias. It's hard sometimes, because people get so emotional on this issue and other issues related to it, and your natural tendency is to respond in kind.

--Scuro 03:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, it's me, Larry R. Holmgren. I started on Wikipedia on December 30, 2006. I found you on the Gary Null biography. I had thought that you were an old adept. I think I wrote about 65% of the article!

After reading your talk page I have a Scientologist story to share with you. About 26 years ago I decided to visit ten religious institutions to compare their practices, symbols, and beliefs. I was a student at UCLA Graduate School at the time, on summer vacation. I went to a Temple, some Christian churches, a Mormon (LDS) church, a Scientology Center, and a talk by J. Krishnamurti.

Once some visitors at a house in Van Nuys in which I rented a room, as I found out later, were Scientologists. Surprisingly, I saw them about a month later when I visited the Scientology Center in Hollywood, California during a Friday night Open House, member recruitment event. I looked at their books. They called be into the office and quized me. I remember them asking if I felt "blocked." I said no. Later, as I sat in the big room, this woman I recognized, bursts out of a side room and announces to the room, "Hot damn, we made our quota." I didn't laugh. I never went back. Larry R. Holmgren 04:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Larry, Yes I believe you wrote even more then 65% of the Null article. I have been very impressed by your output and more impressed with it's thoroughness. You have taken a lot of time to research all that information and you have added to the article in an unbiased way, kudos to you! I unfortunately have no scientologist story to share, I've never met one. I'm new to Wiki too, I joined around the same time you did.

--scuro 04:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear friend, IN RE, the Gary Null article. Please explain how you can infer that Gary Null is like Mr. Clean? Apparently, when Gary's writing strays into politics and physics (magnetic fields being confused with gravity)he can be wrong. Larry R. Holmgren 04:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Larry, ....no I did not want to infer that Gary was like Mr. Clean. Rather that some editors have "cleaned" up the article in attempt to make him squeaky clean. Gary is not a "pastel" type of person. He is opinionated and his opinions can be forceful. I'm not judging his opinions but rather the tone of the article is being muted, and that just isn't right because that is not Gary. --scuro 16:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Methylphenidate

I'd like to get your opinion on the drug if you don't mind. I enjoy your posts about it. I am not a huge wikipedia person and am not on it much. I was wondering if you are ever on AIM or yahoo or anything. Let me know. Thanks man, Rjkd12 15:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I have yahoo but don't really use it. Generally from reading the literature and personal observation I can confidently say that Ritalin/Contcerta works very well for those who have or had the hyperactive type of ADHD. Adderall does too but may also work a little better for those who are the "spacey" type of inattentive of ADHDers. It doesn't decrease all of your symptoms but generally helps you do better on tasks and have better focus. It won't make you smarter. Unfortunatly I don't know a lot about medication and you should ask your Dr. about this if you have ADHD.

--Scuro 22:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] your recent deletions

Re your recent deletions in Antipsychiatry article, before editing again that section I recommend your reading of the many Scientology articles in Wikipedia. The citations don’t have to be external. Follow the internal WP links (and the others in the box at the right here) and you will find all the scientological doctrines referred to in the CCHR section.

—Cesar Tort 08:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Cesar, you added the material and some points seemed pretty far fetched to me. It's you responsibility to provide the citations if requested. If all of those facts are mentioned in Wikipedia, shouldn't you provide the reference to the proper Wiki page? Should we as editors be looking for a needle in a haystack? The citations were requested by someone else about a month or two ago. If no citations are provided, why should the material not be deleted?

--scuro 20:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] In the spirit of Wikipedia

You went a little bit over the top on the Breggin discussion page. As Wikians do we not have a common purpose?

--scuro 03:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Please, do not place your personal communications in main user pages.

If you want to post a personal message for me or any other WP user, do it in the talk pages (such as this one).

Thankyouverymuch!

—Cesar Tort 05:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Interesting concept Cesar, you would do well to follow your own advice.

--scuro 05:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Don’t misunderstand me. This is your User:Talk page; not your user main page. Wikipedians don’t post messages on user main pages. User talk pages are like the article’s talk pages: they’re the place to communicate. You wouldn’t like to see another wikipedian messing in your user page, say, below the line: “My father was BiPolar, as was my grandmother and aunt….”. ―Cesar Tort 08:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

My error, I'm still learning the ropes to the structure of Wikipedia. My apologies to you. --scuro 15:27, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I understand. No problem. I also made a few mistakes when I discovered WP less than a year ago.—Cesar Tort 17:57, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User page

Love your userpage; did you see Little Miss Sunshine? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I guess I will have to watch it now! --scuro 17:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you!

Thank you for your link to Russell Barkley's lecture on ADHD. Very interesting. Lova Falk 17:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

No problems, his lecture style is conversational but loaded with information. --scuro 17:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		I award you a barnstar for your hard work with sites on subjects like ADHD, SCT, mental illness, etc. These are all difficult subjects, because they easily give rise to controversy and personal opinions clouding the information, but I find you conscientious and friendly when dealing with this controversy. I really appreciate it! Lova Falk 08:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)