Only a bot wouldn’t understand that this makes no sense ipso facto of the fact that the bot was still there!

I’m right!

And only a bot could call someone a zealous proponent of something they repeatedly criticized!

I want you to talk to a friend of mine:
cleverbot.com

Sure, I am every bit a scientologist as Harriet Hall or Jerry Coyne are.

Again, I already said what I wanted to say. I don’t think it’s worth wasting my time any longer here. You guys have a great time self absorbed in the Novella-verse .

I just said I have a huge problem with psychiatry. How can I possible be a a pro-psychiatry zealot considering that?

Do you actually read what people are writing, or do you just spout?

Wait a second…I just figured it out! You are a Bot! You are a bot programmed by Scientology!

It all makes sense now…..

Oh well, maybe if I went to better schools I’d get it.

Zealots like you are beyond convincing. You are driven by dogma, not by reason. And that’s fine. I found a couple of reasonable bloggers here and that’s more than I usually find in similar forums. I know I am on the right side of history on this and the reasons I gave, from the scientific ones to the ones related to the role psychiatry plays in perpetrating human rights abuses, are enough to, if not convince, at least make consider, reasonable, non dogmatic people that psychiatry is a scam. We will win this battle against the scam one blogger at at time . Have a nice day.

And you know as much about this blog as you know about the brain.

I must admit – I do believe that you had some difficulties that were handled poorly by psychiatry, and I think that this happens quite a bit. Psychiatry has a ton of problems rangin from overstating it’s understanding of the basic science to those it treats, to conflict if interest.

But based on your zealotry (you are a true believer if every I’ve seen one), and your track record of misrepresenting yourself and your level of understanding of the relevant issues, I would say that you’re exaggerating those circumstances to add credibility to your claims. If I’m wrong (and I know, you’re going to say that I am – it’s pro forma at this point – but I mean if I’m REALLY wrong) I sincerely apologize. That would be a horrible thing to go through.

But if you want to have a serious discussion about the very real problems of psychiatry, I would suggest that you:

1. drop all of the nonsense you’re using to try to increase the credibility and weight of your posts, it doesn’t work.

and

2. Don’t grind an axe with Manichean nonsense , make a specific argument and back it up with facts. Every single thing psychiatry has ever done is wrong and bad and evil, on and on. That just isn’t so. When you’re wrong on the particulars and someone calls you on it, which is inescapable with such an extreme stance, you simply say that you’re not going to split hairs (in caps). What is that?

If you seriously want to convince others that psychiatry needs to be reformed or even remade, you’ll think about some of this advice.

If, on the other hand you want to troll certain blogs with lies and extremist nonsense that no one is going to buy, carry on.

Regulars here are the same that have a “cult like” relationship with everything Novella says. It’s the same Novella that complains that his SGU is considered too political by the NSF and that big names in science do not want to be associated with the things he promotes.

Go figure!

“Instead of blindly believing all dogmas of your so called “skeptic movement””

You know less about me than about the ad hominem fallacy, so please spare me your analysis. Regulars here would laugh at your characterisation.

This is my advise to you. Instead of blindly believing all dogmas of your so called “skeptic movement”, think a little bit by yourself. Engaging in a splitting hairs discussion to introduce a red herring when the argument is lost is as old as demagoguery itself. It didn’t work here, it will not work anywhere. So if you ambition is to scare away those big names in science that Novella laments do not attend your conferences, you are doing a great job!

“It’s like that laughable attempt to introduce a red herring on the meaning of “ad hominem” attack.”

Hey, friendly advice (ie you don’t need to respond)…

Okay, you’ve dug yourself in too deep now to be admitting anything here, but may I suggest that you look up that fallacy before you use it again elsewhere and embarrass yourself further.