I joined The Straight Dope a few weeks ago. I was excited to post and talk with others. These people have never met me, they do not know me, however I was attacked and called names and why because they did not believe what I was saying. I would never call anyone a liar or crazy… Before attacking someone and calling them names you should at least have your facts straight. I am fighting ignorance one person at a time…
I’m guessing the OP is referring to this thread.
Book sales slow?
To be fair, the things you said were impossible and they sound crazy. I’m not surprised you object to the things that were said, but most people were trying to be helpful and it’s difficult to fault their judgment.
And everyone got in trouble for the actual name calling, and the thread is now closed because of it. Not much more is going to happen.
I read the back cover of the book (scroll down)…
Is it name calling to suggest that Shirley’s mother was absolutely correct in her assessment?
I love the author description on Amazon. From Zoid’s link:
Ummm… Something about that doesn’t seem right to me, but I can’t quite put my finger on it.
I want to make it very clear that I do not believe Ms. Moore’s assertions about her parentage. Further, I believe that if Ms. Moore is not a clever writer putting on an act in order to shill her highly unlikely story about being the late President Kennedy’s daughter, then she may well benefit from having a professional medical practitioner assess her for possible chemical, hormonal or metabolic imbalances.
In a sense, yes. We don’t know if Ms. Moore’s mother is qualified to diagnose schizophrenia, or even if she knows what schizophrenia is. We don’t know if she, like many people, confuse that illness with Bi-Polar Disorder, psychosis, fugue states, and so on. Unless one knows for a fact that a medical professional has examined Ms. Moore and diagnosed her as having schizophrenia, then, IMO, to suggest that her mother is correct in asserting* that Ms. Moore is schizophrenic is tantamount to name-calling.
To put it simply, had Ms. Moore’s mother been quoted as saying Ms. Moore is a bitch, a retard, a nutjob, or an attention whore, would it be reasonable to accept uncritically that her assessment was correct? (Well, it would be entertaining, at the very least.)
*It is an “assertion” and not an “assessment” if Ms. Moore’s mother is not qualified to diagnose schizophrenia.
So, just to be clear your stance is: you believe that these are either lies, or mental illness - but nobody except you is qualified to make that statement. And we should accept your assessment uncritically, but not her mothers or the entire attending staff at the institution in which she claims she was committed?
I didn’t say that and have reread my post to see if any of my statements gave that impression. If you would quote which statement has given that impression, I will be happy to clarify. There is something I would like to clarify, though. I don’t know if the person posting under the user name sannemoore is the alleged author of Code Name Apollo. So, for the purposes of this post, I will not refer to the OPer in the now-closed thread as Ms. Moore, but as sannemoore.
Of course not, and for the same reason I don’t accept sannemore’s (or Ms. Moore’s mother’s alleged) statements: you have no idea who I am and I have no idea who sannemoore, Ms. Moore, or Ms. Moore’s mother, is. There is no independent third party who can vouch for our identities and the accuracy of our statements. The difference is that I stated I was giving my opinions; sannemoore was alleging facts (for which he or she would not provide evidence). BTW, the suspicion that sannemoore was “faking” mental illness in order to garner interest for Ms. Moore’s book is not original with me–it was expressed by another SDMBer in the now-closed thread. I happen to agree that, in the absence of mental illness, it is a plausible explanation for sannemoore’s actions.
Ms. Moore’s book was self-published and has not been reviewed by a literary entity with established credibility. sannemoore’s claims in the now-closed thread were not supported by independently verifiable cites, even after repeated requests that he or she provide them. In the absence of proof, skepticism is a logical response to sannemoore’s and/or Ms. Moore’s claims. Further, the burden of proof is not on me to disprove sannemoore’s and/or Ms. Moore’s claims. “An extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof.” Marcello Truzzi
But, the point of my post was not to debate the merits of sannemoore’s/Ms. Moore’s claims, but to state that, in the absence of a medically based diagnosis, it is akin to name-calling to side with Ms. Moore’s alleged assertion that Ms. Moore suffers from schizophrenia. But then again, for all I know, the author of the book, or the book’s publicist, or some PR flack, could have made up that “quote” and stuck it on the book’s jacket just to stir up more controversy and interest in the book.
If sannemoore is troubled by mental illness, or a chemical imbalance that manifests as mental illness, then I hope he or she gets appropriate medical treatment very soon. If sannemoore is shilling for a vanity-published CT book, I hope he or she goes away very soon. If the truth lies (oxymoron?) somewhere else, then I would be interested to know what it is, but not very interested.
But, we have the author’s own words, which make up a sizable percentage of the back of the book’s dust cover:
I could make a rectally-sourced judgment (“assessment”) that someone is crazy, and seek to have them committed for their own safety, but if a reputable institution, staffed by competent practitioners, does not agree that the person needs to be involuntarily admitted for observation and treatment, they will be released.
The author has clearly, and unambiguously, stated that competent professionals in the field adjudicated her mental state as requiring admission to a “Mental Hospital” for a period of several weeks.
Shirley’s mother may not have had the training and credentials to diagnose schizophrenia, but we “know[[del]s[/del]] for a fact that [[del]a[/del]] medical professional[s] ha[[del]s[/del]ve] examined Ms. Moore and diagnosed her …” as having a mental state not inconsistent with involuntary commitment, whether or not that state was schizophrenia.
Coupled with the outrageous tenor of her posts in the Kennedy thread, many posters advised her to seek professional help, as she clearly was demonstrating—whether legitimately or as part of some “clever” play for sympathy—unstable behavior patterns.
I find it difficult to say it is “calling names” to tell someone with a self-admitted history of psychotic episodes, and acting (posting) in a highly-unstable manner, that they may need to seek the help of professionals in the field of mental health. Admittedly, some of the posters here on the Dope resorted to such replies as, “You’re crazy.” They were censured by the Mods, and rightfully so. But most of the negative commentary was not “because they did not believe what [she] was saying…”, as it was jaw-dropping astonishment at the totally outrageous nature of the (unsubstantiated) claims.
Then why would you also speculate they may just be ‘shilling’ for book sales? If they are not the author of the self-published book, how do you figure they would benefit by shilling sales?
So, if your theory is that they are faking mental illness to sell books, they must be the author - but that would mean they are in fact the person who wrote the book, who is reportedly mentally ill by their own account of being hospitalized for schizophrenia.
If your theory is that they are troubled with mental illness and not just shilling books, almost all of the posts that you are saying were name-calling simply agreed with your statements, so I don’t see what your beef is exactly.
Welcome to the Internet. I would advise against visiting literally every other website on the planet if your treatment here bothered you that much.
What’s it to you, smeghead?
Just as a reminder and general statement: name-calling directed at other posters is NOT PERMITTED on the Straight Dope Message Boards, except in the forum called “The BBQ Pit.” In all other forums, name-calling/personal insults are a direct violation of our rules.
For those unclear about the rules, see: FAQs - Please Read First - Rules, Guidelines, Etiquette, Technical Issues - About This Message Board - Straight Dope Message Board
Note also that we make a distinction between the poster and what the poster said. Thus, “What you said is stupid,” is NOT name-calling or personal insult. “You are stupid” IS personal insult.
The reason why we are not accepting what you say is because we don’t think the evidence you gave us supports your claim. Your evidence from that thread was:
- Your daughter was born on May 19. Jacqueline Kennedy died on May 19.
- John Kennedy Jr died at 9:39. You worked for a radio station with the frequency 93.9.
- Your social security number has the same digits as John F Kennedy’s social security number.
- You were born on 9-17. John F. Kennedy was born in 1917.
We do not see these things as proof that you are John F. Kennedy’s daughter. We see them as random coincidences.
Hey, hey, hey…I actually know another JFK lovechild/illegitimate spawn. Only he’s way more convincing that you are. Firstly his Mom claims to have slept with JFK, and was a notorious barfy, in her day, so there’s that. And he looks remarkably like JFK, and that’s an unlikely coincidence, for true. Of course, neither ever claimed any coincidental dates, times, radio frequencies, so they could just be making it all up, I suppose.
Oh, and he was way more entertaining that this woman is, but never wrote a book.
You live in an age of DNA. If the proof is in your veins than show us. If all you got is some number games, you gotta expect thinking people to chuckle at your antics.
As an attempt to get people to click on your vanity published book, creating an illusion of interest, where none really exists, I give your effort a 2 out of 10. I mean, what, no photos? I do think you’d benefit from some therapy, but hey, takes all kinds to make a world, including wild conspiracy theorists.
They are sort of the comic relief, dark times call for!
Could be a shill for the publishing house. Or a friend getting a percentage of the sales price in exchange for shilling.
That doesn’t necessarily follow. Could be a shill, etc.
I never claimed there were multiple posts that included name-calling, much less identify any as such. I was addressing only zoid’s question in this thread (post #6).
I actually don’t have a beef with any specific person. I was trying to express my objection to labeling someone as mentally ill based on another person’s medically unsubstantiated claim. (Also, allow me to clarify that I was not addressing cases where a person self-identifies as mentally ill.) And to be clear, I interpreted zoid’s question literally, without assuming he or she engages in or supports doing what I object to. In other words, I made no value judgement about zoid for asking the question.
To summarize, I don’t like when people belittle other people with statements such as, “have you taken your meds today”, “you should talk to your doctor about having your meds adjusted”, or when people dismiss someone’s expression of deep anger as “just acting all crazy”. There is a lot of prejudice towards the mentally ill and misunderstanding of mental illness. Many people who need help do not seek it for fear of being permanently labeled “crazy”, with the public’s subsequent distrust and fear of them. No one chooses to be mentally ill, and it doesn’t help the mentally ill when people make disparaging remarks about one’s need to take psychotropic medication. ETA: and it doesn’t help them when irresponsible, lazy, or immature behavior is casually equated with mental illness, because this feeds the belief that the mentally ill could cure themselves by just growing up or “getting over themselves”.
And how does it help, the mentally ill, to not challenge the crazy when it’s presented?
I mean, birthdates and radio frequency coincidences? That doesn’t scream unaddressed mental health issues to you?
I agree with your distaste for the overused, ‘check your meds’, as a general insult. But that’s not what’s going on here, as far as I can tell.
I should think in this case, it would be sound advice, to be honest.
@elbows: I agree, in principle, with you on this. In order to address comments and questions raised by my post, I touched on some specifics in sannemoore’s now-closed thread. However, my main intent was to address in a general manner the question raised in post #6 (in this thread).