WTF is this thread even about anymore?
Folks sucking madly onto their partisan options, Huey taking giant dumps on folks left AND right, and those trying to make reasoned posts are just pissing into the wind.
Is this SDMB 2019? I don’t like it, at all.
Are you at all aware that you’re in the Pit? It’s the people making “reasoned posts” who are the threadshitters.
Dude, even for the pit it’s a fucken cesspool.
Sure, ‘reason’ and ‘pit’ are normally mutually exclusive, but FFS, this thread could go on for bloody YEARS the rate things are going.
Is this what the SDMB has become? And don’t give me some shit that it’s always been this way. The quality of argument has deteriorated substantially in the last couple of years, coincidentally since the advent of Donald and his shitsuckers who infest this board.
Then you chuck in Huey and it morphs into something REALLY disgusting. Fuck.
No, just until America stops being racist.
WTF
I’ve certainly lost interest in this thread, due to the participation of a couple of real dingdongs. But that’s happened to the occasional thread ever since I first joined the board; and elsewhere, right now, there are some threads with some very solid discussion (plus a couple of real dingdongs).
That was pretty good! 
Let me tell you something. I was minding my own fucking business in this thread before Guin came after me first. I’m not taking no fucking prisoners with you white supremacists. That ship has sailed a long time ago. I insist on treating these monsters - these carrion-eating vultures- the same way they treat me, and other people of color. Best believe that. If, for example, you came after me, I would ether (or in Guin’s case, shether) you, too. Go on, try me. Notwithstanding this, out of respect for the thread and because my presence has become as distraction, this will be my last post in this thread; but I swear to God, if you don’t want your resident 9th graders and your white supremacists (whom you love to protect) to get dogwalked, instruct them to keep my name (and that of my loved one’s) out their motherfucking mouths. Let them know that if they don’t start none, there won’t be none.
Thanks
Lest anyone get the impression that Huey Freeman reads the papers he cites (as opposed to picking the first links that look relevant in a Google Scholar search), note that the first paper shows that certain types of antidepressants have very little effect on feelings in relationships – and for those that do have such an effect, it is reduced by length of time in the relationship.
The second paper says that the tested antidepressant can cause recipients to value trust more, and improve relationships by improving perception of balance in emotional engagement:
It also reduces the perceived importance of physical intimacy, but also “did not significantly diminish the rated quality of participants’ own physical relationships with their current partners compared to placebo.”
Embarrassing.
Someone may have to volunteer to feel the embarrassment on his behalf, he seems to lack the necessary machinery.
Not It.
He’ll be back. People always say that, but they never mean it.
How old are you?
Oh, the irony.
And nobody was talking about your loved ones. Someone’s been whooshed, big time.
As for your comments on my personal life, it’s none of your business, what I do in my private time. Suffice to say, you know jackshit about mental illness, anxiety and depression. You’re just a vile, hateful creature.
(bolding mine)
Even when I offer the leave the fucking thread, you vultures just can’t help yourself in trying to sideswipe me on my way out of the door. The only thing that is embarrassing is your cherry picking. The devil effectis real. Now, it’s your turn. Yes, the authors showed that anti-depressants increased feelings of mutual trust but it also decreased feelings of intimacy. This is laid out for you in the abstract, Figure 4, and in the supplemental figures. Because I know ya’ll either can’t read or hungry to prove me wrong, I’ll walk you through this.
Translation: The authors find citalopram treatment decreased feelings of intimacy and a “good physical relationship” (the authors words) while increasing feelings of mutual trust.
Translation: The authors find citalopram treatment decreased feelings of intimacy and a “good physical relationship” (the authors words) while increasing feelings of mutual trust.
Translation: The authors find citalopram treatment decreased feelings of intimacy and a “good physical relationship” (the authors words) while increasing feelings of mutual trust.
Translation: The authors find citalopram treatment decreased feelings of intimacy and a “good physical relationship” (the authors words) while increasing feelings of mutual trust.
Now, to your point (which I bolded above and below). You deliberately failed to include the information from the authors putting this sentence in context. Why would you do that? Why wouldn’t you quote that paragraph in full where the authors give context to that sentence? Why cherry pick like that just to claim victory? It’s cool, I’ll do it for you. Let me quote the entire paragraph in full without your cherry-picking.
Translation: While the treated patients did not report decreased quality of their sex lives with their partners, the authors found specific limitations related to this point. These limitations included brief treatment time and sensitivity in asking questions about one’s sex life. The authors surmise that the utilization of indirect methods to probe the participants’ sex life rather than direct questioning would be more “successful in tapping sensitive areas of relationship function”.
Now, sit down. Your puzzle pieces are calling you.
ETA: Guin, I see you responded but I’ve decided wave the white (lol) flag and leave you the fuck alone. For what it’s worth, I take no pleasure in ragging on females. Ya’ll get enough of that shit from white men. For your sake and to keep the peace, I encourage you to do the same and leave me the fuck alone. As I stated before, don’t start none, there won’t be none.
Thanks.
I’m guessing that you don’t see the irony in this.
Regards,
Shodan
I was not involved on this side discussion, but me and many others can’t believe that.
BWAHAHAHAHA!!!
Sure you don’t.
If you’re under the impression your posts do anything other than remind us all what a shit head you are then you’re sorely mistaken.
Given how comprehensively you keep getting your ass handed to you, this sentiment may be better expressed as “Don’t start none, because it’s not nice to pick on retards.”
btw, I did a quick search to see how many times you’d used the words ‘hoe’ and/or ‘thot’.
The answer? 23.
10% of your posts contain at least one explicitly misogynistic slur. But yeah. You don’t hate women.
My cherry picking? Dude, you’ve already shown a tendency not to read what you cite. History – and the papers in question – are on my side. BTW, you did read the second paper you cited, right? The one that’s not open access? You wouldn’t cite a paper you didn’t read, surely.
No, you ignorant nincompoop, that is NOT a translation. The right translation would be this, if you need me to spell it out for you in detail. By “Citalopram reduced the rated quality of couples’ physical relationships” the authors meant that the participants rated the quality of OTHER PEOPLE’S PHYSICAL RELATIONSHIPS, not their own. They showed a reduction in importance attributed to their own physical relationship, but that’s not necessarily a positive or negative.
Also an extremely misleading “translation”. Participants attributed less importance to physical intimacy; nowhere did the authors say that participants had decreased feelings of having a “good physical relationship”.
In fact, that pretty much applies to ALL your quotes from the paper. Here’s a clue-by-four, buddy: seeing less importance in the physical aspect of your relationship (and more importance in trust) does not. necessarily. mean. you. have. a. bad. relationship.
And as for your last quote … the authors are giving a story about what MAY be happening to confound results. You can’t reasonably draw anything from that except that the paper has limitations. This absolutely does NOT support you using it as an “antidepressant use is bad for relationships” hammer to somebody’s figurative balls.
That’s the point of that account, I think. To claim to be a member of a particular demographic group, and smear the reputations of all in that group by being unremittingly nasty, unfair, and wrong (as with the writer’s apparently deliberate mis-characterization of the research on depression, as just demonstrated by PR in this thread).
https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=21427216#post21427216
The writer is doing a pretty good job of it, too. Should put in for a bonus, if working for wages. But of course the writer might be doing this out of ideological fervor, and not for pay at all.
Huey, some of these folks have been engaged in this character assassination, cliquishness, and rude behavior for over 20 years and over multiple message boards. They’ve been having the same fights and the same toxic behavior for longer than you’ve been alive. You can’t kill, metaphorically speaking, that which has no life.
On topic, how many pages will a thread attacking a teen because of non-approved hat and non group think run?
“Here, on the fringes of the society, we see one underfed troll calling plaintively to another…”
/Attenborough
