That's how you've come across to me, a lot, as not recognizing that your opinion is not just not a majority, but a small minority.
As long as you admit that and when this comes up again, as it inevitably will, I can refer back to this, fine.
You don't owe me explanations or anything else, but I form my impressions of what you think based on what you say and how you say it, just like you do with me.
This is the first time I remember ever hearing you admit that your opinion is that of a small minority (that is what you've admitted, right?).
I have some minority opinions, too. I don't see anything wrong with that and I certainly don't expect you to change your opinion just because you and I perpetually argue about this. That *would* be presumptuous.
I think if you're talking to someone and implying dire things will happen to them if they don't follow your advice---which is how your comments on psychiatric medications come across to me---or as if *most* psychiatrists are flakes and are wrong and are incompetent, which you have *definitely* implied---then I *do* think that it's not right to wait to be asked, I think you *should* volunteer that you know it's a small minority opinion.
That's what I do when I give someone advice or imply that bad things will happen to them if they don't do what I think they should---and you do imply that people are at significant risk of dying if they take certain mainstream psychiatric medicines, and you imply it to a greater extent than a large majority of psychiatrists would set that risk, and iirc we've talked about that before and what side effect profiles mean and what they *don't* mean---when *I* give advice based on a small minority opinion that I hold I practice what I preach, I *do* inform people that it's a small minority opinion.
I *don't* wait for them to ask me, "Uh, wait, is that a generally popular opinion, or is it a really small minority opinion based on smallish bits of largely anecdotal evidence and reading existing side effect profiles and warnings in a small minority kind of way?"
I think giving advice you know is out of the mainstream without volunteering that, and making it sound like it's just something many people "don't know"---rather than that a whole lot of people who *do* know about that data strongly disagree with your interpretation of it----*is* implying or insinuating that more educated people who know a bit about reading scientific or medical data agree with you than really do.
I still think that this is not a matter of me having been presumptuous, but you having been disingenuous.
Now that you've admitted that yours is a small minority opinion (you have, haven't you?) and that the large majority of people who know what they're reading and have read the same data you have strongly disagree with your interpretation of it (you have admitted that, haven't you?), then I can just post a "see thread" reference whenever this comes up and save myself a whole lot of time repeating myself.
If you're *not* admitting that regarding the major mental illnesses---I'm not debating "the sniffles" with you here---then go ahead and say so here, please, because it will save a lot of time as this comes up over and over every month or so.
At this point I'm in a double-bind can't-win situation because on the one hand we keep saying the same things over and over and I think people have a right to know your opinion is a minority and you don't volunteer that information when it comes up, and I think your advice or acting on your experience*** is so bad for most people I just can't in conscience not say anything, and on the other hand, I'm real tired of repeating myself.
So if I sound frustrated, it's because I am. I don't blame you a bit for being frustrated too, which is why I think it's a good idea to just go ahead and clear the air so a thread link can stand for all the stuff we keep repeating over and over.
You're entitled to your opinion, and you're certainly entitled to freedom of expression, and if someone tried to censor you I'd be right out there along with you fighting that censorship.
I just think that other people are entitled to know that you're not just listing data or warnings or whatever that other people "don't know"---you're listing things that a whole lot of people who take the time to be very aware on the subject *do* know about and the large majority of them just disagree with you on what conclusions about risks and benefits to draw from the available research, drug trials, warnings, and history in the patient population about psychiatric medications and psychiatrists.
So if you're admitting that you're *not* presenting stuff that most of the large majority of people who have educated opinions on the subject and disagree with you simply "don't know about," then fine.
Because you *do* heavily imply that people who disagree with you on this are ill-informed or just not paying attention. And that's just not true. A large majority of people who are well-informed and paying attention just disagree with you on what the whole body of sound research shows and the whole body of clinical experience shows and on what the various bodies of data and results mean.
If you admit that, let's go ahead and get it on the record now. If you only admit parts of it, lets get which ones on the record.
I'm sure I sound grumpy and a lot of people I give the thread link will read this and have a negative emotional reaction to me personally, but I think getting the straight skinny on what each of us is asserting in this perpetual argument of ours down in black and white is more important to me than looking sweet---because I'm just that tired of repeating this every month or so, but since you *don't* disclose up front what a minority position your advice is, me letting it go by and not saying anything isn't an option my conscience can live with.
It's going to be easier to just post the thread link.
Timoclea
