"Engage in a genuine debate without attacking"

Postby Candid » Thu Jan 19, 2012 3:46 am

Hi Jur

I replied to your question by PM because it was made clear to both of us that no one on that thread is looking for answers, dietary or otherwise. You replied asking for a genuine debate without attacking. You then made several attacking remarks, but that doesn't bother me.

You and I are both solution-oriented. Our perspectives are equally valid.

People who don’t eat properly, exercise regularly and get enough sleep are likely to run into all kinds of difficulties eventually. That’s common knowledge, doesn’t need to be spelled out 13,000+ times.

People who have suffered rape or battery, bad parenting, prolonged bullying or any other kind of traumatic experience will almost always sustain psychic harm. Very often, particularly in the case of child abuse, poor diet is just part of the mix.

There are millions of cowering animals on our planet. They still eat what’s right for their species, but they’ve been brutalised… and they go on cowering. Psychic harm is a fact.

People who have unaddressed psychic damage almost always choose to self-medicate. Drugs, alcohol, comfort food, anorexia and bulimia are all ways in which people struggle to regain their equilibrium. Telling a depressed victim of sexual assault to give up alcohol and cigarettes and regulate her diet would be funny if it weren’t so incredibly lacking in empathy.

Chronic stress blocks the absorption of nutrients. Weight rises or plummets, hair falls out, nails break and teeth develop cavities. No diet is going to help if the stress is not relieved.

The mind
is attached
to the body
by the neck

Inadequate nutrition, no exercise and poor sleep habits will affect the body and the mind.
Horrible life experiences will affect the mind and the body.

I have never said and never will say nutrition is not important. I do take issue with your hypoglycemia response for every occasion, but that’s as far as it goes. You, on the other hand, have repeatedly written that talk therapy is useless and all therapists will be unemployed when the world sees the hypoglycemic light. How many years has it been? The knowledge can’t possibly have been suppressed; I’ve seen your incredible industry on this forum alone!

I have also seen many threads where your fervour has been misplaced, of which two examples will suffice.

A 17-year-old girl wrote that her father’s new partner was antagonistic towards her (all too common, and very believable) and was about to move in with them. In Dad’s excitement at his new relationship, the house – including the OP’s bedroom -- was being decorated to this woman’s taste. The OP had every reason to believe she was about to be bullied out and that Dad wouldn’t see straight enough to stop it.

You told the girl to have herself tested for hypoglycemia, then she’d be fine with all this.

I was 10 hours behind you (in the UK), and by the time I got to the thread the OP had vanished, never to return.

The other obvious example is the original K’s story. In that case the OP was better able to stand up to you, so I won’t repeat his observations here.

You objected to my description of your posts as spamming. To me, the unthinking application of the hypoglycemic diet to any and every situation easily qualifies.
Candid
MVP
MVP
 
Posts: 9152
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2010 10:00 am
Likes Received: 448


#1

Postby Candid » Thu Jan 19, 2012 5:02 am

jurplesman wrote:
Candid wrote:I believe his diet is at fault
These are remarks by people who feel that their views on the treatment of mood disorders are the only right ones, and that any alternative view deserves a personal attack on the author
Do you not believe your own "views on the treatment of mood disorders are the only right ones" -- or in your case, view/right one singular? Do you consider yourself to be "attacking" everyone with your opinion that their diet is at fault?
most of Candid's posts here reflect the outdated philosophy of the psychoanalytical school of psychology, dating back to the first half of last century (starting with Sigmund Freud),
She repeats this with infinite monotony.
All of jurplesman's posts here reflect the long-outdated belief that people are what they eat, and nothing more,
He repeats this with infinite monotony.
This allows her to preach to people on how "to think correctly" and impress on the readers, that if you have a mental illness, it is simply your fault. All you need to do is "change your thinking ("the way I think") and you will be cured".
This allows jurplesman to preach to people on how "to eat correctly" and impress on the readers, that if you have a mental illness, it is simply your fault. All you need to do is "change your diet ("the way I eat") and you will be cured".
She seems incapable of challenging the ideas that appear to be in conflict with her simple notions of psychology and hence resort to non-sensical ad hominem arguments against people, instead of their ideas.
He seems incapable of challenging the ideas that appear to be in conflict with his simple notions of people-as-machines-needing-only-the-right-fuel and hence resort to non-sensical ad hominem arguments against people, instead of their ideas.
Candid, I challenge you to debate with me in a more serious way what is wrong with the psychonutritional therapy as a method of treating mental illness.
Nothing whatsoever... provided you don't expect it to cure everything, and take account of personal history.
If you are not prepared to do so, please try to develop a more tolerant attitude to any ideas that seem to be in conflict with yours.
I'm happy to see ideas other than mine. Including yours, Juriaan. Otherwise I might as well talk to myself, right?
Candid
MVP
MVP
 
Posts: 9152
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2010 10:00 am
Likes Received: 448

#2

Postby Candid » Thu Jan 19, 2012 6:41 am

One more post and I'll assume you've ceded the debate you asked for.
jurplesman wrote:When a person is depressed ... it is caused simply by a physical disease, like any other physical disease.

The tragedy is that the idea of mental illness being an illness of the mind, is so ingrained in the human psyche...
And in the language, too!
mental, a. & n. Of the mind; done by the mind; ~ patient: under care for disordered mind. OED
... the publicly subscribed non-sense that is [sic] is a sickness or [sic] the mind

Start off by reading:
and we all know the rest. Note: all forms of talk therapy have been dismissed as nonsense. We could all live quite happily in total isolation if only we ate right.

This is today's offering on the thread you and I were asked to leave yesterday. I did.
Candid
MVP
MVP
 
Posts: 9152
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2010 10:00 am
Likes Received: 448

#3

Postby jurplesman » Fri Jan 20, 2012 7:49 am

Candid wrote: People who have suffered rape or battery, bad parenting, prolonged bullying or any other kind of traumatic experience will almost always sustain psychic harm.


This is NOT true. Many people - and perhaps the majority - experience serious traumas in their lives, but some recover and others don't. Nutritional psychotherapists asked the question, why is it that some develop into PTSD and others don't. When you test these people with a GTT, you'll find that most of them are hypoglycemic, which prevented them from recovering from the trauma.
Hypoglycemia is not recognize by mainstream medicine. (Read: "Hypoglycemia: A forgotten Disease" by Dr George Samra at our web site).
Read "Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and Hypoglycemia".

Hence doctors have problems helping people with PTSD, and for that matter most other mood disoders. Drugs and medications are not curing people. It means simply masking the symptoms without "curing" the underlying cause. There is a difference between "treating" people and "curing" people.

Of course, there are many other silent diseases, apart from or in addition to hypoglycemia, that play a role in mood disorders.

Telling a depressed victim of sexual assault to give up alcohol and cigarettes and regulate her diet would be funny if it weren’t so incredibly lacking in empathy.


I never tell people to give up drugs. That is a decision they have to make. I can tell them how to, if they want to.

Chronic stress blocks the absorption of nutrients. Weight rises or plummets, hair falls out, nails break and teeth develop cavities. No diet is going to help if the stress is not relieved.


True, but once you have created a physical disorder due to stress, you need to treat the physical disorder FIRST before considering "psychological" factors. There are studies to show that stress can cause diabetes, but once you have diabetes, you need to address the illness FIRST if you want to improve depression.

Furthermore, what goes under the name of "environmental stress" is more often than not signs of an unacknowledged metabolic disorder that CAUSES a person to react in stressful and irrational ways.
For instance, i have had clients who committed crimes, said to have resulted from a "dysfunctional family". I found that the whole family suffered from various metabolic disorders, including diabetes and hypoglycemia, and heavy metal intoxication.

I have never said and never will say nutrition is not important. I do take issue with your hypoglycemia response for every occasion, but that’s as far as it goes. You, on the other hand, have repeatedly written that talk therapy is useless and all therapists will be unemployed when the world sees the hypoglycemic light. How many years has it been? The knowledge can’t possibly have been suppressed; I’ve seen your incredible industry on this forum alone!


I have always said and will continue to say that talk therapy is useless when and if the problem under consideration is caused by biological factors and not so much by "psychological" factors.
Hence when seeing a client for the first time, you need to examine by medical tests whether "psychological" symptoms are due to"environmental circumstances or biochemical factors. IF biochemical factors play a role in mood disorder, YOU MUST FIRST ADDRESS THAT before psychoanalysing a person. Talk-therapy is not useless in the absence of any biological factor. It is most useful in "environmental depression", which is rather rare.

Do you not believe your own "views on the treatment of mood disorders are the only right ones" -- or in your case, view/right one singular? Do you consider yourself to be "attacking" everyone with your opinion that their diet is at fault?

All of jurplesman's posts here reflect the long-outdated belief that people are what they eat, and nothing more,

All you need to do is "change your diet ("the way I eat") and you will be cured".

all forms of talk therapy have been dismissed as nonsense.


I am passionate about nutritional psychotherapy because it is evidence-based science, unlike psychology, which predominantly theoretical. What I say is backed up by a plethora of independent studies. Have a look at: Research Evidence for Hypoglycemia" at our web site.

The above quotes show the mistake you make by "universalising" or "oversimplifying" or "misrepresenting" (also called Straw Man Arguments) one's opponents views. It is introducing the concept of ALL or ONLY into the debate.
Nowhere have I ever said that hypoglycemia, or nutrition is the ONLY treatment method in mood disorders. What I have said and continue to say that you MUST FIRST treat biological factors BEFORE considering "psychological" factors.

It happens to be the case that the majority of mood disorders involve biochemical imbalances, that need to be treated FIRST before considering psycho-social factors. These are simply facts not fiction!

Not ALL talk therapy is useless, provided biological factors have first been addressed. In fact, my experience tells me that psychotherapy becomes important after physical treatment of the illness. Many people have to re-learn social skills. My book devotes long sessions to psychotherapy.

Most doctor and psychologists, unfamiliar with nutritional medicine fail to bring about "cures" because they ignore the biochemical factors that will keep clients in a permanent state of "Treatment Resistant Depression". Their clients, instead of going back to doctors or psychologist, who cannot help them, they come to this web site for help, because they cannot find it anywhere. Then only to find that they are given the same useless advice, that professional psychologists have given them before.... ignoring biological factors.

Furthermore psychologists have a tendency to encourage depressed people to continue to believe in their DELUSIONS. If you want to know what I mean by delusions please research our web site. Delusions are mainly misconceptions about the causes of one's depression.

My advice to you Candid is, if you want to have a career in counselling, study a course in nutritional biochemistry concentrating on "mood disorders", in addition to a course in psychology. Seeing your clients get better is really rewarding. Future social workers will have to have a post graduate degree/diploma in Clinical Nutrition, if they want to have any success in their career in really helping people overcome the epidemic of "mental" illness in our society. You cannot expect this to come from psychiatrists or psychologists, who have a conflict of interest.

Also read the book by Pam Killeen "ADDICTION: The Hidden Epidemic" Google Search for this book.
jurplesman
Super Member
 
Posts: 14142
Joined: Mon Jun 21, 2004 5:38 am
Location: Sydney, Australia
Likes Received: 2

#4

Postby Candid » Fri Jan 20, 2012 10:47 am

jurplesman wrote:Seeing your clients get better is really rewarding.
I thought there was a slender chance the debate might be worthwhile -- until I came to this sentence. It is, like so much of what you write, both disrespectful and ignorant.
http://www.uncommonforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=71023

Then have a look at this http://www.uncommonforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=67642 and tell me nutrition was the top priority in this case... or even that the OP was likely to be able to locate, visit and be tested by a nutritional doctor before the sh** hit the fan.

Unfortunately, because of your view that a person's history and circumstances are irrelevant, I suspect you read one line (or maybe just the title) then launch in with
Depression is a nutritional disorder
and so on.
Candid
MVP
MVP
 
Posts: 9152
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2010 10:00 am
Likes Received: 448

#5

Postby Candid » Fri Jan 20, 2012 12:06 pm

Okay, I'll pretend you didn't dismiss my university training and years as a counsellor/psychotherapist.
jurplesman wrote:Nutritional psychotherapists asked the question, why is it that some develop into PTSD and others don't?
but excluding personal history and environmental factors, right?

If we're going to have a debate, please don't put this sort of thing
Read: "Hypoglycemia: A forgotten Disease" by Dr George Samra at our web site.
Read "Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and Hypoglycemia".
into every post. It implies you think your time is more valuable than other people's.
Drugs and medications are not curing people. It means simply masking the symptoms without "curing" the underlying cause.
I think you might have read that on one of my recent posts!
There is a difference between "treating" people and "curing" people.
I ask you not to insult my intelligence, Jur.
Candid wrote: Telling a depressed victim of sexual assault to give up alcohol and cigarettes and regulate her diet would be funny if it weren’t so incredibly lacking in empathy.
jurplesman wrote: I never tell people to give up drugs.
But the hypoglycemia diet does... and that's where virtually all of your posts end up, if people follow your link. Avoid alcohol, tobacco (and other things), it says.
Candid wrote:Chronic stress blocks the absorption of nutrients. Weight rises or plummets, hair falls out, nails break and teeth develop cavities. No diet is going to help if the stress is not relieved.
jurplesman wrote: True, but once you have created a physical disorder due to stress, you need to treat the physical disorder FIRST before considering "psychological" factors.
How do you expect to tackle dietary deficiencies in isolation if the client’s stress is preventing absorption?
Furthermore, what goes under the name of "environmental stress" is more often than not signs of an unacknowledged metabolic disorder that CAUSES a person to react in stressful and irrational ways.
I must disagree. In at least as many cases, metabolic disorders are clearly caused by environmental stressors. I understand you have worked with convicted rapists and battering men; I have worked with their victims and partners. The men may well have metabolic disorders (and when they get hold of that excuse, I suppose some of them will stop saying “I was drunk at the time” ) – but do you seriously propose that the women’s diets caused men to beat and rape them? And that afterwards the women were depressed simply because they weren’t eating properly?
jurplesman wrote: IF biochemical factors play a role in mood disorder, YOU MUST FIRST ADDRESS THAT before psychoanalysing a person.
This is the equivalent of a GP saying: "Right, you believe you have a chest infection and need antibiotics, but first we must establish whether your parents provided enough emotional support when you were very young." Any GP who did that would rightly be struck off as a lunatic.
jurplesman wrote: The above quotes show the mistake you make by "universalising" or "oversimplifying" or "misrepresenting" (also called Straw Man Arguments) one's opponents views. It is introducing the concept of ALL or ONLY into the debate.
Yes, Jurriaan. And the ‘above quotes’ were replicas of your own comments, replacing ‘talk therapy’ with ‘hypoglycemic diet’. I'm surprised you didn't recognise them, especially as they were posted one after the other!
jurplesman wrote: Nowhere have I ever said that hypoglycemia, or nutrition is the ONLY treatment method in mood disorders.
It is implied in more than 13,000 posts on this forum alone, when the client’s account of his or her troubles is dismissed as irrelevant.
jurplesman wrote: It happens to be the case that the majority of mood disorders involve biochemical imbalances,
Agreed. Where we differ is in my understanding that environmental stressors give rise to biochemical imbalance, and yours that it arises spontaneously. The need for special adaptation of standard first-world diet comes after the fact.
jurplesman wrote: These are simply facts not fiction!
Can you consider that your facts may not be Universal Truths? That the data from nutritional testing could be skewed by a lofty belief that environmental factors are irrelevant?
jurplesman wrote: … clients, instead of going back to doctors or psychologist, who cannot help them, they come to this web site for help, because they cannot find it anywhere. Then only to find that they are given the same useless advice
I presume this is the ‘useless advice’ I offer? You know: the empathic, individual posts I make; the ones quite a number of posters have thanked me for?
jurplesman wrote:If you want to know what I mean by delusions please research our web site.
:lol:
But seriously: if you want me to know what you mean by delusions, please feel free to post the information here. I visited your website several times during my first couple of months on this forum. I very much doubt I will look at it again.

Along the same lines, since I read books that interest me, work as a book editor/manuscript developer, write my own books, run a writer’s group, teach creative writing and am an active member of three online forums, I won’t be reading Pam Killeen: "ADDICTION: The Hidden Epidemic”. I very rarely post in the addictions forum and I’m glad to see you advising recovering addicts on nutrition there. It's just not an interest of mine.

You may or may not be aware how many times I have suggested to people on this forum that they PM you or dav1307. I distinctly recall on at least one occasion cutting and pasting one of your own cut-and-pastes when I thought it was appropriate.

It has occurred to me that you and I could look at each other’s latest two pages of posts (under SEARCH author) which I believe would be 30 posts. I would award you one point for each post that didn’t tell the OP to take the hypoglycemia test, and you would award me one point for each post that didn’t tell people to “think differently”.

For instance, I didn’t tell girlnextdoor to think differently. I still can’t believe you actually read her post. If you did, you showed a total inability to ‘walk in her shoes’. And Jurriaan, that’s a large part of what I do.
Candid
MVP
MVP
 
Posts: 9152
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2010 10:00 am
Likes Received: 448

#6

Postby jurplesman » Sat Jan 21, 2012 4:33 am

Candid wrote:Unfortunately, because of your view that a person's history and circumstances are irrelevant, I suspect you read one line (or maybe just the title) then launch in with
Depression is a nutritional disorder


Here you go again where have I stated that ""a person's history and circumstances are irrelevant"? That is your impression of me. Generally, because of pressure of work and numbers of clients I tend to separate the wheat from the chaff in people's personal histories and just look for SYMPTOMS. Symptoms tell me why humans behave as they do.

As a Nutritional Psychotherapy biochemical analysis takes priority over psychoanalysis. I repeat again, before considering any abnormal psychological reactions or experiences FIRST assess the biochemical underpinnings before guessing that it may be "bad parenting" (psychological). I can see you have great problems accepting that.

Candid, if you can accept that most depressed people suffer from a underlying biochemical abnormality as stated by most psychiatrists and other scientists (source), can you accept that talk-therapy alone can not "cure" depression. You must first treat the underlying biochemical abnormality before engaging in "talk-therapy".

If people are depressed because they have hypoglycemia can you accept that treating hypoglycemics by "talk-therpy" is useless. See Gyland Studies here.

If people are depressed because of any a number of other Silent Diseases, do you really believe you can help these people with "talk-therapy"?

How do you expect to tackle dietary deficiencies in isolation if the client’s stress is preventing absorption?


By nutritional means! Some people have a very high demand for niacin which interferes with the conversion of tryptophan into serotonin, they experience stress as a result and this is treated nutritionally.
If a person has problems handling stress situations it may be due a nutritional disorder!!!! First assess this possibility, before considering anything else.

The men may well have metabolic disorders (and when they get hold of that excuse, I suppose some of them will stop saying “I was drunk at the time” ) – but do you seriously propose that the women’s diets caused men to beat and rape them? And that afterwards the women were depressed simply because they weren’t eating properly?


Indeed a lot of sexual abusers will say that and that is supported by studies that most sexual offences occur when alcohol is consumed, usually by both partners.

Many women survive sexual abuse and continue to live happy lives after they have recovered from the trauma. This is no excuse for sexual abuse. But if women develop PTSD as a result of sexual abuse, you can help them by nutritional means!!! PTSD although it has powerful "psychological" symptoms is really a physical disease.
Most public attention is given to the victims of sexual abuse (quite rightly), and not to the perpetrators, who without therapy may continue to offend. I used to treat sexual offenders in nearly the same way as any other offender by psychonutritional means. Success rate about 80%, depending on motivation and many other factors.

This is the equivalent of a GP saying: "Right, you believe you have a chest infection and need antibiotics, but first we must establish whether your parents provided enough emotional support when you were very young." Any GP who did that would rightly be struck off as a lunatic.


This is indeed a lunatic question. What has this to do with our discussion about nutritional medicine. Do you mean, "a child experienced continual stress in the family and as a result her immune system is weakened, resulting in a chest infection. The GP may rightly presume that the family may need a social worker to iron out any conflict in the family. A nutritional social worker may be expected to be more successful, than an old-fahioned psychologist. In fact I have two nieces who are professional social workers and aware of nutritional influences on behaviour.

quote:

Originally posted by jurplesman
Nowhere have I ever said that hypoglycemia, or nutrition is the ONLY treatment method in mood disorders.

It is implied in more than 13,000 posts on this forum alone, when the client’s account of his or her troubles is dismissed as irrelevant.

The implications are yours, not mine!

Can you consider that your facts may not be Universal Truths? That the data from nutritional testing could be skewed by a lofty belief that environmental factors are irrelevant?


Environmental factors are NEVER irrelevant, but biochemical factors must be eliminated before these environmental factors can be taken into account.

But seriously: if you want me to know what you mean by delusions, please feel free to post the information here.


See: Delusions

I know you don't like researching, if not interested.

You last paragraphs say tall: You are not interested in Nutritional Psychotherapy and I don't blame you. It requires a hell of a lot of study. It is a pity, because with this additional knowledge you - with some counselling skills - could be helping a lot of people, beyond just empathising. It shows that you and I have a different outlook on life and especially on "mental illness", which happens to be my speciality.

But if we can derive any lessons from our discussions it is that we need above all respect people that may be harbouring different views and assumptions about life and especially science and counselling. Be careful about attacking posters instead of what they have to say.
jurplesman
Super Member
 
Posts: 14142
Joined: Mon Jun 21, 2004 5:38 am
Location: Sydney, Australia
Likes Received: 2

#7

Postby Candid » Sat Jan 21, 2012 1:58 pm

jurplesman wrote:Here you go again
Do you not consider this disrespectful? Because I do.
where have I stated that ""a person's history and circumstances are irrelevant"? That is your impression of me. Generally, because of pressure of work and numbers of clients I tend to separate the wheat from the chaff in people's personal histories and just look for SYMPTOMS. Symptoms tell me why humans behave as they do.
Yes. On many of your posts you have told people "this sounds like a sad story, but it's a mistake to think that's your problem. Test yourself with..."
If people are depressed because they have hypoglycemia can you accept that treating hypoglycemics by "talk-therpy" is useless.
Of course. I am nowhere near as obtuse as you imply. IF a man has blisters on his hands BECAUSE he’s been chopping wood for weeks, a sunhat is equally useless. [This is called an analogy; see below] However I don't believe every depressed person has hypoglycaemia, particularly in first-world countries where malnutrition is extremely rare.
See Gyland Studies here.
If people are depressed because of any a number of other Silent Diseases, do you really believe you can help these people with "talk-therapy"?
If we're going to have a debate, please don't put this sort of thing into every post. It implies you think your time is more valuable than mine. I mentioned this yesterday; continuing to do it is the same as continuing to post on threads where the OP has clearly told you several times that they are not interested in your opinion. Eg. K’s story.
Candid wrote:How do you expect to tackle dietary deficiencies in isolation if the client’s stress is preventing absorption?
jurplesman wrote:By nutritional means!
Guess I should have seen that coming.
Candid wrote:The men may well have metabolic disorders (and when they get hold of that excuse, I suppose some of them will stop saying “I was drunk at the time” ) – but do you seriously propose that the women’s diets caused men to beat and rape them? And that afterwards the women were depressed simply because they weren’t eating properly?
jurplesman wrote:Indeed a lot of sexual abusers will say that and that is supported by studies that most sexual offences occur when alcohol is consumed, usually by both partners.
I will save you from yourself and not draw this to the attention of my colleagues in women's services. For the record, I hadn’t been drinking the night a stranger raped me.
Many women survive sexual abuse and continue to live happy lives after they have recovered from the trauma.
Yes, I did. And without having heard of hypoglycemia, believe it or not. It took talk therapy, self-awareness and above all, time. My distress after being raped had nothing to do with my diet, I assure you!
Candid wrote:This is the equivalent of a GP saying: "Right, you believe you have a chest infection and need antibiotics, but first we must establish whether your parents provided enough emotional support when you were very young." Any GP who did that would rightly be struck off as a lunatic.
jurplesman wrote:What has this to do with our discussion about nutritional medicine. Do you mean, "a child experienced continual stress in the family and as a result her immune system is weakened, resulting in a chest infection. The GP may rightly presume that the family may need a social worker to iron out any conflict in the family.
No, I don't mean that at all. And I've just realised that you take things very literally! The example I gave was an analogy. A GP who recommended psychotherapy for a chest infection would be as ignorant and heartless as another kind of health professional recommending a change of diet to a young woman whose new stepmother is turning her father against her. As in this thread: http://www.uncommonforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=67642 I am still not convinced you’ve read the OP’s post.
You last paragraphs say tall: You are not interested in Nutritional Psychotherapy and I don't blame you.
I have not said this. You may or may not be aware how many times I have suggested to people on this forum that they PM you or dav1307. I distinctly recall on at least one occasion cutting and pasting one of your own cut-and-pastes when I thought it was appropriate. [This too is a repeat from yesterday, in case anyone else is following this thread and thinking they’re having deja-vu.]
It shows that you and I have a different outlook on life.
Obviously. In fact this ‘debate’ is not about nutrition vs talk therapy. I acknowledge the importance of both and you say you do too – although off the top of my head I can only remember seeing one of your posts that advised a poster to see “a social worker” – after the expensive tests for nutritional deficiencies, of course. And the post I refer to appeared after I initiated this debate thread.

I understand you are here representing the hypoglycemic association of Australia. I am here representing myself. The variety of my posts, and my willingness to learn about other viewpoints (including yours) amply demonstrate that I am not banging a drum for any specific therapy.

You seem to be unaware of how often you miss the point of someone’s post simply because you don’t take in what they have to say.
http://www.uncommonforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=677570
On this thread an OP with a purely intellectual question about an item found on line is advised to discuss it with a Nutritional Doctor, Clinical Nutritionist or Nutritional Psychotherapist. Are nutritional doctors seeing so few clients that they are this keen to do a bit of PR on the side? And if so, would this information session be free of charge?
jurplesman wrote:I know you don't like researching
You know no such thing. A very high proportion of my present work is research, and I love my job.
jurplesman wrote:Counsellors without a background of nutritional biochemistry will become unemployable in the not-too-distant future. People with mental illness are becoming more educated about their illness! and will be looking for nutritional doctors.
Nutritional doctors who dismiss their clients’ life experience, focusing instead on physical symptoms, will ensure counsellors are never short of work!

Bottom line: you have a particular axe to grind, and all your posts refer people to your website. This would be considered unacceptable spamming on the majority of internet forums, and I object to spamming. To a lesser degree I object to your public criticisms of my own work, all the while accusing me of ad hominems, straw men, and lord knows what else.
Candid
MVP
MVP
 
Posts: 9152
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2010 10:00 am
Likes Received: 448

#8

Postby jurplesman » Sun Jan 22, 2012 2:52 am

I think you have said enough.

WE can go on and on, and it is becoming a struggle between hurt egos.

I accept that you will never become a nutritional psychotherapist. You either are interested or you are not. Let us agree we have little in common.
jurplesman
Super Member
 
Posts: 14142
Joined: Mon Jun 21, 2004 5:38 am
Location: Sydney, Australia
Likes Received: 2

#9

Postby jurplesman » Sun Jan 22, 2012 3:35 am

Oh and BTW Candid, your remarks about me spamming is one of those ad hominem arguments when you have a philosophical conflict. I am a volunteer here like yourself.
I don't make any money or derive any financial interest from my interest in psychonutritional counselling, here or anywhere else. I started off my career as a volunteer and finish up as a volunteer.

If you want to earn my respect for you I would appreciate an apology for this insulting remark.
jurplesman
Super Member
 
Posts: 14142
Joined: Mon Jun 21, 2004 5:38 am
Location: Sydney, Australia
Likes Received: 2

#10

Postby Candid » Sun Jan 22, 2012 5:59 am

I no longer derive my income from counselling but, like you, I find a great deal of satisfaction in everything I choose to do.

I have the respect of friends, family, past and present clients, and a lot (but not all) people on this forum. If all that respect were removed tomorrow, I would still have my own self-respect -- and that's all that matters to me.

I didn't set out to insult you, merely to point out the way you are perceived by a lot of people on the forum. And why.

Your opinion of me is none of my business.
Candid
MVP
MVP
 
Posts: 9152
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2010 10:00 am
Likes Received: 448

#11

Postby angrywoman » Mon Jan 23, 2012 6:53 am

I came to the 'Lounge' forum for a bit of light relief but I find a polemic on both sides. Rape and hypoglycemia - whatever that is (please don't explain - I've got the gist). Are you serious? Really, are you?
angrywoman
New Member
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2012 5:26 am
Likes Received: 0

#12

Postby angrywoman » Mon Jan 23, 2012 7:59 am

I have now read the whole thread, having just skimmed it previously. To whom would I go for counselling? Candid. She writes well, really well. Her arguments are flawless, and her compassion is apparent. Jurplesman (what kind of name is that anyway) uses quotation marks injudiciously or ignorantly (for "psychological" reasons) and uses CAPITAL LETTERS to allude to DELUSIONS that depressives may experience. Jurples uses generalities galore - just one I've noted down is 'many people have to relearn social skills'. WTF? In relation to what?

Candid, I know this is not about you 'winning'. But in my book you do, hands down.
angrywoman
New Member
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2012 5:26 am
Likes Received: 0

#13

Postby Candid » Mon Jan 23, 2012 9:57 am

Thank you for your comments. Jur (short for Jurriaan) Plesman is a very long-term member of this forum, and hasn't moved a millimetre since the day he first posted.

Your perception that this was not about winning meant a lot to me. I spoke to Jur by phone shortly after I joined the forum, and his heart's definitely in the right place. He's perceived as something of an anachronism here, and takes a lot of flak for his one-eyed stance.

I can still remember the shock of reading girlnextdoor's single post. When I scrolled down and saw Jurriaan had been the first to reply, I thought: No. Please God no. He can't possibly have replied to this girl the usual way.

When I saw what he'd posted I felt sick.

Since then, his highhandedness and total absence of empathy has rankled badly and I'll put my hand up to having taken some cheap shots.

Mostly it doesn't matter; people ignore his posts. Knowing as I do that he means well, and seeing how regularly he's bewildered at the vehemence of people's replies to him, I thought I might be able to bring about some resolution. When he challenged me twice to a debate (once by PM and at least once on the open forum) I thought I might be able to get that through to him.

Believe me, there's no feeling of triumph at 'winning' this debate.
Candid
MVP
MVP
 
Posts: 9152
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2010 10:00 am
Likes Received: 448



Return to Light Lounge