GUESS WHICH COUNTRY THIS IS...

[|-|ercules]

They pull people off the street for no crime, pin them to the floor and strip them naked and inject them with stupefying drugs,
and release them 1 month later.


SPOILER
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,




If you thought "not Australia" you were WRONG!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Involuntary_commitment
"Australia is used as an example of a country where court hearings are not required for involuntary commitment"


A policeman with 8 weeks training out of high school can take you in for "odd behaviour", then you'll have psychiatrists
interviewing you WITH THE FACT THAT IT'S A POLICE ISSUE.

http://www.chiefpsychiatrist.health.wa.gov.au/publications/docs/Involuntary_Detained_1.pdf
"Decide after seeing you again to extend your detained involuntary status for up to six months."



My advice, don't park a campervan overnight at a beach carpark, the police don't want 20 hippies parking there
the next month.

Herc
--
Pardon my outbursts, I'm Genesis Adam and I'm severely weakened by 8 years continuous sonic torture.
Want to save the world? Organise a witness to meet me in Brisbane or Caloundra for proof on sight,
as 1,000s have already witnessed in Townsville and Caloundra.

 

[geoff]

|-|ercules wrote:

They pull people off the street for no crime, pin them to the floor
and strip them naked and inject them with stupefying drugs, and
release them 1 month later.

So you are some bitter nutter ?

geoff

 

[|-|ercules]

"geoff" <geoff@nospam-paf.co.nz> wrote ..

|-|ercules wrote:
They pull people off the street for no crime, pin them to the floor
and strip them naked and inject them with stupefying drugs, and
release them 1 month later.

So you are some bitter nutter ?

Everyone's got a theory about the bitter one.

Herc

 

[keithr]

On 29/01/2010 11:30 AM, geoff wrote:

|-|ercules wrote:
They pull people off the street for no crime, pin them to the floor
and strip them naked and inject them with stupefying drugs, and
release them 1 month later.

So you are some bitter nutter ?

Is that a rhetorical question?

 

[|-|ercules]

"kreed" <kenreed1999@gmail.com> wrote ..
On Jan 29, 10:26 am, "|-|ercules" <h...@r.c> wrote:

They pull people off the street for no crime, pin them to the floor and strip them naked and inject them with stupefying drugs,
and release them 1 month later.

SPOILER
,

Australia

Didnt they do this to some woman solicitor who was arrested over some
petty matter, and dared to tell them she was a solicitor, knew her
rights and didn't consent to an interview ? Saw it on Lateline last
year.

Despite video evidence etc, the cops involved (as usual) were just let
off. Just said that they believed she was mental because she refused
an interview and used that as justification for their illegal actions
and abuse.


-----------------------------------------


I don't think the police have drugs they can use, (although we were gassed a few times in prison which put
us all to sleep in 30 seconds).

The problem is you get detained by the mental health act because it's a police issue, and the mental staff watch
you and wait for the "uncooperative" moment.

Now when I go in I see them scanning me for what mode of treatment to give me, and put on a big smile and
shake hands, ask for a coffee, then atleast you don't get raped by them.

Herc

 

[geoff]

|-|ercules wrote:

Now when I go in I see them scanning me for what mode of treatment to
give me, and put on a big smile and shake hands, ask for a coffee, then
atleast you don't get raped by
them.

MAybe if you tried looking cuter ?

geoff

 

[Asazel]

On a slightly related topic,

Look for this reference :

David L. Rosenhan, "On Being Sane in Insane Places," Science, Vol. 179 (Jan.
1973), 250-258.

As an experiment a group of (normal) volunteers were asked to go to
psychiatric hospitals, and report fairly benign symptoms, such as hearing a
voice saying "Thud" or "empty".

All were admitted. After this, the volunteers had been instructed to cease
any reports of symptoms and "just behave normally."

All were hospitalized. All but 1 got a diagnosis of schizophrenia. The
longest stay in hospital was 52 days and the shortest stay was 7 days. None
of the patients were "detected" as actually being a sham, or faking their
initial symptom.

During their stay in hospital, almost everything the volunteers did was
interpreted as abnormal. One like to pass time by drawing, and this was
reported in his hospital file as "obsessive". If they walked around, this
was interpreted as restlessness and if they sat down this was interpreted as
vegetative, or lack of motivation. If they spoke it was interpreted as an
inability to remain silent, but if they were silent it was said to be an
inability to speak.

The conclusion of the study (and several follow-up studies) is that
psychiatrists can detect insane people. But then again, ordinary people
(mostly) can detect insane people. For the most part it's pretty easy to
observe that someone is insane. But psychiatrists cannot detect sane people,
and that's the scary part. It means they can prove insanity but they cannot
disprove it.

Once the diagnosis of insanity is made (whether rightly or wrongly) it's
darn near impossible to have it removed or disproven. When a person who has
been given the label of insanity argues that they are not insane, it's far
too easy to dismiss the argument as just more evidence of their insanity.
The person becomes stuck in a vicious cycle. The only way to break the cycle
is for the person to agree with whatever the psychiatrist might say,
including statements such as "You are insane." Nothing else will work.

I think that's the point the OP is trying to make.

 

[kreed]

On Jan 29, 10:26 am, "|-|ercules" <h...@r.c> wrote:

They pull people off the street for no crime, pin them to the floor and strip them naked and inject them with stupefying drugs,
and release them 1 month later.

SPOILER
,

Australia

Didnt they do this to some woman solicitor who was arrested over some
petty matter, and dared to tell them she was a solicitor, knew her
rights and didn't consent to an interview ? Saw it on Lateline last
year.

Despite video evidence etc, the cops involved (as usual) were just let
off. Just said that they believed she was mental because she refused
an interview and used that as justification for their illegal actions
and abuse.

,
,

,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,

If you thought "not Australia" you were WRONG!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Involuntary_commitment
"Australia is used as an example of a country where court hearings are not required for involuntary commitment"

A policeman with 8 weeks training out of high school can take you in for "odd behaviour", then you'll have psychiatrists
interviewing you WITH THE FACT THAT IT'S A POLICE ISSUE.

http://www.chiefpsychiatrist.health.wa.gov.au/publications/docs/Invol...
"Decide after seeing you again to extend your detained involuntary status for up to six months."

My advice, don't park a campervan overnight at a beach carpark, the police don't want 20 hippies parking there
the next month.

Herc
--
Pardon my outbursts, I'm Genesis Adam and I'm severely weakened by 8 years continuous sonic torture.
Want to save the world?  Organise a witness to meet me in Brisbane or Caloundra for proof on sight,
as 1,000s have already witnessed in Townsville and Caloundra.

 

[Coach]

On Jan 29, 10:55 am, kreed <kenreed1...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Jan 29, 10:26 am, "|-|ercules" <h...@r.c> wrote:

They pull people off the street for no crime, pin them to the floor and strip them naked and inject them with stupefying drugs,
and release them 1 month later.

SPOILER
,

Australia

Didnt they do this to some woman solicitor who was arrested over some
petty matter, and dared to tell them she was a solicitor, knew her
rights and didn't consent to an interview ?  Saw it on Lateline last
year.

Despite video evidence etc, the cops involved (as usual) were just let
off.  Just said that they believed she was mental because she refused
an interview and used that as justification for their illegal actions
and abuse.

If the actions were illegal, they wouldn't have been let off. You
can't have it both ways. Or are you suggesting that they were charged
and found guilty, but the Judge or Magistrate ordered the conviction
not be recorded? So how is that being "let off"?

 

[kreed]

On Jan 29, 11:04 am, Coach <suv...@yahoo.fr> wrote:

On Jan 29, 10:55 am, kreed <kenreed1...@gmail.com> wrote:



On Jan 29, 10:26 am, "|-|ercules" <h...@r.c> wrote:

They pull people off the street for no crime, pin them to the floor and strip them naked and inject them with stupefying drugs,
and release them 1 month later.

SPOILER
,

Australia

Didnt they do this to some woman solicitor who was arrested over some
petty matter, and dared to tell them she was a solicitor, knew her
rights and didn't consent to an interview ?  Saw it on Lateline last
year.

Despite video evidence etc, the cops involved (as usual) were just let
off.  Just said that they believed she was mental because she refused
an interview and used that as justification for their illegal actions
and abuse.

If the actions were illegal, they wouldn't have been let off.  You
can't have it both ways.  Or are you suggesting that they were charged
and found guilty, but the Judge or Magistrate ordered the conviction
not be recorded?  So how is that being "let off"?

Weren't charged - thats how it always works.

Whoever decides on these things followed the usual decision process,
"its a cop, therefore he can do no wrong, so we will twist the rules
to justify his actions".

Knowing what happens in QLD to people who press matters like these,
the complaint was probably withdrawn.

Check the Lateline archives if you want the full story - well their
version of it.

 

[|-|ercules]

"Asazel" <asazel@thegroup.com> wrote

On a slightly related topic,

Look for this reference :

David L. Rosenhan, "On Being Sane in Insane Places," Science, Vol. 179 (Jan.
1973), 250-258.

As an experiment a group of (normal) volunteers were asked to go to
psychiatric hospitals, and report fairly benign symptoms, such as hearing a
voice saying "Thud" or "empty".

All were admitted. After this, the volunteers had been instructed to cease
any reports of symptoms and "just behave normally."

All were hospitalized. All but 1 got a diagnosis of schizophrenia. The
longest stay in hospital was 52 days and the shortest stay was 7 days. None
of the patients were "detected" as actually being a sham, or faking their
initial symptom.

During their stay in hospital, almost everything the volunteers did was
interpreted as abnormal. One like to pass time by drawing, and this was
reported in his hospital file as "obsessive". If they walked around, this
was interpreted as restlessness and if they sat down this was interpreted as
vegetative, or lack of motivation. If they spoke it was interpreted as an
inability to remain silent, but if they were silent it was said to be an
inability to speak.

The conclusion of the study (and several follow-up studies) is that
psychiatrists can detect insane people. But then again, ordinary people
(mostly) can detect insane people. For the most part it's pretty easy to
observe that someone is insane. But psychiatrists cannot detect sane people,
and that's the scary part. It means they can prove insanity but they cannot
disprove it.

Once the diagnosis of insanity is made (whether rightly or wrongly) it's
darn near impossible to have it removed or disproven. When a person who has
been given the label of insanity argues that they are not insane, it's far
too easy to dismiss the argument as just more evidence of their insanity.
The person becomes stuck in a vicious cycle. The only way to break the cycle
is for the person to agree with whatever the psychiatrist might say,
including statements such as "You are insane." Nothing else will work.

I think that's the point the OP is trying to make.

That's classic, I often say they need normal people as controls and to make their diagnosis
without reading the previous report first.

I wrote this this morning for my defamation case against police.



I don't see the reason behind the overkill in the way the government has treated me the last decade,
especially considering a supreme court judge at my tribunal hearing was told I had no symptoms, that
I was grandiose. A Centerlink psychologist said there is no way I am paranoid schizophrenic because
I don't come across as paranoid at all, and he's worked with many patients and I am nothing like them.
Both the police and the mental health system play chinese whispers. Someone makes a complaint so
they write a report. They pass the report to the next department and they rewrite it and add to it. They
pass it to the next department and they add some more. After 10 years I have an inch thick psychological
report based on no symptoms, now no psychiatrist would ever clear me of being ill for having such a profile.

With my name on police records for being a mental patient, all it takes is a complaint and I am taken to the
back door of a mental ward and they use the 28 day hold without charge mental health act. I have been locked
up and acuphased several times for trivial deeds that police cannot charge me with. It started for parking my
campervan at a beach carpark. Then again for being at my exgirlfriends back yard, a place I lived for 3 years
previously, being contantly verbally abused by my sister and father and telling them to shut up and walking away,
yelling at my neighbours for verbally abusing me, missing a pyschiatrist's appointment, and for writing a love letter.

The psychiatrists don't see that it's their report getting me locked up, they just see that I've been institutionalised
so many times I must need constant treatment. When I was taken away from the beach carpark the police insisted
I go to hospital to check my migraine. I didn't know what was happening but the manager kept telling me
to drink some valium. I kept saying no and asking why do I need to drink valium. He made a hand gesture and 5 nurses
dragged me to the floor, stripped me naked and injected me, and put me in a room with a mat on the floor.
Two years later the same thing happened, the police removed me from my ex girlfriends house and took me
to the hospital to check my blistered feet. I was sitting down, they said I had to stay the night and a nurse tried
to grab my arm and I moved my arm away. 5 nurses pulled me off my chair to the floor, stripped me and acuphased me again.
Acuphase gives you the mentality of a 5 year old for a week. They pinned me to the floor so hard I had a limp
for 2 weeks. They said it was for being uncooperative. In what country do they pull people off the street for no crime,
pin them to the floor and strip them naked and inject them with stupefying drugs, and release them 1 month later?



Herc

 

[Asazel]

Herc, it's pretty clear that you have been subjected to some scary,
degrading, demoralizing, treatment and you've been in and out of the
psychiatric profession's washing machine more often than any man should.
Equally so, the legal system most likely has put you through their washing
machine.

I have no doubt that if ever a proper analysis were made of your experiences
it would show numerous errors and injustices.

You need to make a decision about how to proceed. Broadly speaking, you have
2 choices. You can proceed with defamation and whatever other legal means
might apply. Or you can shake your head, say thank god it's over, and vow
never to get sucked into those washing machines again.

I think the first option above will not bring relief or a feeling of justice
being done; it will throw you right back into the machinery that has already
harmed you so much. It will cost you time and money and deny you the time
and money you need to heal. You will exit the process even more traumatized
than you are now.

I know that's a bitter pill to swallow and it means that the lies said about
you will never be corrected, and the injustices will never be set right.
Rightly so. I would feel the same and I would yearn for "my day in court."
But your day in court will probably never come, and even if it does it will
be some minor technical point of law that gives you scant comfort.

If your reputation is tarnished, the most effective way to prove you're
actually a good person .. is to be a good person and let people see it. This
will go much further toward restoring your reputation than a sheet of paper
from a court saying "Ooops, Herc was innocent after all.".

The sad part is, nobody will go home and tell their family all about the guy
they who had a bit of paper saying he'd been treated unfairly. But they will
go home and tell their family about the guy they met who was really doing
something goood for the word despite how it had treated him in the past.

Decide which of those two guys you'd rather be.

 

[Coach]

On Jan 29, 11:27 am, kreed <kenreed1...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Jan 29, 11:04 am, Coach <suv...@yahoo.fr> wrote:



On Jan 29, 10:55 am, kreed <kenreed1...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Jan 29, 10:26 am, "|-|ercules" <h...@r.c> wrote:

They pull people off the street for no crime, pin them to the floor and strip them naked and inject them with stupefying drugs,
and release them 1 month later.

SPOILER
,

Australia

Didnt they do this to some woman solicitor who was arrested over some
petty matter, and dared to tell them she was a solicitor, knew her
rights and didn't consent to an interview ?  Saw it on Lateline last
year.

Despite video evidence etc, the cops involved (as usual) were just let
off.  Just said that they believed she was mental because she refused
an interview and used that as justification for their illegal actions
and abuse.

If the actions were illegal, they wouldn't have been let off.  You
can't have it both ways.  Or are you suggesting that they were charged
and found guilty, but the Judge or Magistrate ordered the conviction
not be recorded?  So how is that being "let off"?

Weren't charged - thats how it always works.

Whoever decides on these things followed the usual decision process,
"its a cop, therefore he can do no wrong, so we will twist the rules
to justify his actions".

Knowing what happens in QLD to people who press matters like these,
the complaint was probably withdrawn.

So in otherwords, their actions were never proved illegal - something
that you said earlier that it was. If you have proof of illegal
activity, what action have YOU taken to have them charged?

 

[|-|ercules]

Yes it's a great notion, and if the 1 year to go to court rule is not flexible to allow for me
being docile for 7 years under involuntary treatment then I'll accept it as fate.

But consider a few points.

Enkidu posted that I was an extortionist yesterday. Sylvia called me an extortionist today.

I posted a few weeks ago to a skeptic member "you better hope you're right", and the police
came to my door and started accusing me of poisoning Dick Smith foods. I said that was from
the sentence "please reply in a day or two" from 2002.

He asked "can you really win the skeptics prize?" and I said they'd have to do the test to find out.
So he later said "can you do it or not?".

So I said "give me your paperwork", he handed me some forms and I glanced at the sheet and
read out "It was part of his duty". Baffled as they were, I explained it answered the question he
just asked. He asked his partner to make up another question, "what color is our car?", I read
the next page and landed on the word "Obviously". They told me that's not a color but they're
not the skeptics to decide that, and they would ask the skeptics to proceed with a test, but
I shouldn't contact them again.

The skeptics renegged on the competition, had me labelled an extortionist, got me locked up for 7 months,
injected fortnightly for 3 years, doped up for 7 years, over the line "Please reply in a day or two".

AND NOW THEY'RE GOING TO THE POLICE AGAIN SHOWING THEM THE IDLE THREAT
FROM 8 YEARS AGO..... THEY WANT ANOTHER GO!

That was too much fun getting a psychic pisssed on for a decade. Let's do it all over again.


So when the next person get's his words rearranged by police into a serious crime, and remember
terrorists and extortionists are the "black soul" people in today's society, how would you feel letting
them get away with it again?

Herc

 

[Atheist Chaplain]

"|-|ercules" <h@r.c> wrote in message
news:_Wp8n.4098$pv.1087@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

They pull people off the street for no crime, pin them to the floor and
strip them naked and inject them with stupefying drugs, and release them 1
month later.

Narnia ??

--
[This comment is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Church of
Scientology International]
"I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your
Christ." Gandhi

 

[Mr.T]

"Asazel" <asazel@thegroup.com> wrote

The only way to break the cycle
is for the person to agree with whatever the psychiatrist might say,
including statements such as "You are insane."

You somehow think agreeing that you are insane will "prove" to them you are
not insane?
That sounds like insanity to me

MrT.

 

[Asazel]

You somehow think agreeing that you are insane will "prove" to them you
are
not insane?
That sounds like insanity to me

MrT.

This was an observation made by the people who did the experiment I referred
to, and when you think about it, it makes sense.

It sounds like a paradox, but it's true. Do this experiment in your mind.
Imagine somebody said you were crazy. They said that you were yelling and
screaming that people were out to get you. They reported this to the local
mental health authorities. They said you were making all sorts of weird
statements in your home, yelling so loudly that they could hear it from the
street. They said you were yelling that the police were out to get you and
lock you up.

I know it's implausible that someone would say this, but for the sake of
argument let's imagine they did.

So the local mental health people come to your door because they want to
check if you are a danger to yourself or others. You are dumbfounded when
they tell you what they have heard. You don't know what to say, because it's
a complete surprise and of course you deny it all. After all, it's not even
true.

So of course they say "well, why would someone say such a thing then?" and
of course you get a bit nervous and agitated. You say "I really don't
know.....I can only guess that someone is trying to discredit me and make it
appear that I'm insane. But who would do such a thing? Why would they say
this about me when it's not true?"

So they think "Mmmm...this is all adding up. Listen to him...he's telling us
that he thinks unseen forces are trying to persecute him." That matches the
report we got about his rantings. So they decide you're crazy and take you
to the nearest looney-bin.

Upon arrival at the looney-bin you speak to the psychiatrist who is to
evaluate you. He has a brief report that says "Neighbours reported patient
yelling that people were out to get him. Upon questioning, patient became
agitated and pacing the room. He concluded that unseen forces were plotting
against him."

He's inclined to agree with the report. You do seem quite agitated, after
all, you've been handcuffed and taken from your home in the back of a police
van somewhere and you're not even sure where you are. And of course you
repeat your question to him - "Why am I here? Who said these things about
me? What right do you have to hold me against my will? I demand you let me
go!" At this time you test to see if the door is locked. It is. You turn to
the psychitrist with a look of horror and say "What's happening here? What's
going on?"

Obviously you're distressed and disoriented. You are agitated and need
sedating for your own protection.......You can imagine the next few days.

So how do you get out of the looney-bin? What do you need to say to get
out? If you say "This is all a big mistake....someone told some lies about
me and it led to me being locked up." they will report your lack of insight
and your paranoid delusions. They are not intersted to hear the fine details
of your argument. Psychiatrists have long ago learned that analyzing the
fine details of a delusional story is a waste of time. Instead they look for
"themes". Themes such as "persecution". So if you say "Person X did this to
me" you are paranoid. Or themes such as grandiosity. So if you say "I know
why person X did this... I was just about to bust his ass in court" you are
grandiose. You think you have special powers.

So don't bother with the normal, regular arguments that would steer your
path through the courts. What you need to say is this ... "I realize now
that person X is not out to get me. For a while I thought he was and I was
confused. But now I feel better. I know that my thinking was wrong and I
recognize that I became angry and agitated and fearful for a while, and I'm
sorry. I feel better now and I know that nobody is trying to discredit me
and I admit that I yelled all those things a few days ago. But even though
they seemed to be true then, I realize now that they were not true."

Say this, and you've got a ticket home.

So the answer to your question is sort of "yes". After the diagnosis of
insanity has been made, your best strategy is to admit the diagnosis even if
you think it wrong. Denying the diagnisis will simply get you more and more
trouble. Admit the diagnosis, say you feel better now and everyone will get
off your case.

Problem is, of course that it's then on the record that you have admitted to
insanity. So anything you say subsequently can be dismissed as insane
rantings.

 

[kreed]

On Jan 29, 12:50 pm, Coach <suv...@yahoo.fr> wrote:

On Jan 29, 11:27 am, kreed <kenreed1...@gmail.com> wrote:



On Jan 29, 11:04 am, Coach <suv...@yahoo.fr> wrote:

On Jan 29, 10:55 am, kreed <kenreed1...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Jan 29, 10:26 am, "|-|ercules" <h...@r.c> wrote:

They pull people off the street for no crime, pin them to the floor and strip them naked and inject them with stupefying drugs,
and release them 1 month later.

SPOILER
,

Australia

Didnt they do this to some woman solicitor who was arrested over some
petty matter, and dared to tell them she was a solicitor, knew her
rights and didn't consent to an interview ?  Saw it on Lateline last
year.

Despite video evidence etc, the cops involved (as usual) were just let
off.  Just said that they believed she was mental because she refused
an interview and used that as justification for their illegal actions
and abuse.

If the actions were illegal, they wouldn't have been let off.  You
can't have it both ways.  Or are you suggesting that they were charged
and found guilty, but the Judge or Magistrate ordered the conviction
not be recorded?  So how is that being "let off"?

Weren't charged - thats how it always works.

Whoever decides on these things followed the usual decision process,
"its a cop, therefore he can do no wrong, so we will twist the rules
to justify his actions".

Knowing what happens in QLD to people who press matters like these,
the complaint was probably withdrawn.

So in otherwords, their actions were never proved illegal - something
that you said earlier that it was.  If you have proof of illegal
activity, what action have YOU taken to have them charged?

None, because I know full well what is done to whistleblowers and
troublemakers in this state and I don't want that to happen to myself
or my family - and I want a future for them.

 

[Coach]

On Jan 29, 8:34 pm, kreed <kenreed1...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Jan 29, 12:50 pm, Coach <suv...@yahoo.fr> wrote:



On Jan 29, 11:27 am, kreed <kenreed1...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Jan 29, 11:04 am, Coach <suv...@yahoo.fr> wrote:

On Jan 29, 10:55 am, kreed <kenreed1...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Jan 29, 10:26 am, "|-|ercules" <h...@r.c> wrote:

They pull people off the street for no crime, pin them to the floor and strip them naked and inject them with stupefying drugs,
and release them 1 month later.

SPOILER
,

Australia

Didnt they do this to some woman solicitor who was arrested over some
petty matter, and dared to tell them she was a solicitor, knew her
rights and didn't consent to an interview ?  Saw it on Lateline last
year.

Despite video evidence etc, the cops involved (as usual) were just let
off.  Just said that they believed she was mental because she refused
an interview and used that as justification for their illegal actions
and abuse.

If the actions were illegal, they wouldn't have been let off.  You
can't have it both ways.  Or are you suggesting that they were charged
and found guilty, but the Judge or Magistrate ordered the conviction
not be recorded?  So how is that being "let off"?

Weren't charged - thats how it always works.

Whoever decides on these things followed the usual decision process,
"its a cop, therefore he can do no wrong, so we will twist the rules
to justify his actions".

Knowing what happens in QLD to people who press matters like these,
the complaint was probably withdrawn.

So in otherwords, their actions were never proved illegal - something
that you said earlier that it was.  If you have proof of illegal
activity, what action have YOU taken to have them charged?

None, because I know full well what is done to whistleblowers and
troublemakers in this state  and I don't want that to happen to myself
or my family - and I want a future for them.

Fair enough. That is your choice. But you can't decide to do
NOTHING yourself, and yet accuse police of behaving "illegally".
Either you put up, or shut up. Fair enough? I've spent a lifetime
making examples of people like you who make stupid statements that
defame people in public office when they are emotionally upset - and I
do NOT enjoy it. Don't make that mistake. Look what happened to poor
old Herc.

 

[John Tserkezis]

On 29/01/2010 9:30 PM, Asazel wrote:

I thought I'd throw my 2c in.

Most of what you're saying is pretty much on the ball, however, you're
not playing the sanity card anymore. In mental hospitals (or at least
some of them), the rules have little to do with helping people, and more
with liability. That is, are you in a position that the hospital would
least likely be liable for anything stupid you did once they let you out.

So how do you get out of the looney-bin? What do you need to say to get
out? If you say "This is all a big mistake....someone told some lies
about me and it led to me being locked up." they will report your lack
of insight and your paranoid delusions. They are not intersted to hear
the fine details of your argument. Psychiatrists have long ago learned
that analyzing the fine details of a delusional story is a waste of
time. Instead they look for "themes". Themes such as "persecution". So
if you say "Person X did this to me" you are paranoid. Or themes such as
grandiosity. So if you say "I know why person X did this... I was just
about to bust his ass in court" you are grandiose. You think you have
special powers.

Great, but this only works if you're stable. Because you need to spend
time chatting with the nurses, you need to actively participate in the
activities they offer, and the learning curve works both ways.
Not only do they see how you're proceeding, YOU get to learn what's
"required" of you to get out.
And (sadly) your sanity has little to do with it. Basically, it comes
down to liability again. If you're least likely to harm yourself, or
others, THEN they'll let you go.
Though I want to stress that this does not necessarily mean your mental
disability (either real or self-induced for the purposes of an
experiment) is addressed. At all.

So don't bother with the normal, regular arguments that would steer your
path through the courts. What you need to say is this ... "I realize now
that person X is not out to get me. For a while I thought he was and I
was confused. But now I feel better. I know that my thinking was wrong
and I recognize that I became angry and agitated and fearful for a
while, and I'm sorry. I feel better now and I know that nobody is trying
to discredit me and I admit that I yelled all those things a few days
ago. But even though they seemed to be true then, I realize now that
they were not true."

Say this, and you've got a ticket home.

Unfortunately, if you really do suffer from some form of mental
disability, it's quite possible that you cannot separate what's going on
inside your head with reality. So you're really not in a position to do
any of that.

It's more likely you'll shift from episodes to periods of lucidity. In
this state, you can indeed do as you say above.

However, they'll keep you in there for long enough to gather paterns.
And if you're unstable it's not going to happen.

It's enough of a chore for for anyone sane let alone if you're ill.

So the answer to your question is sort of "yes". After the diagnosis of
insanity has been made, your best strategy is to admit the diagnosis
even if you think it wrong. Denying the diagnisis will simply get you
more and more trouble. Admit the diagnosis, say you feel better now and
everyone will get off your case.

Providing you're otherwise stable, and just part of an experiment, once
you're part of the system, you're right. It's the only way out. It's
important to note that this is only one small part of the process.
Just saying you're crazy and you've realised the error of your ways
isn't going to do it.
It's a longer process, that unfortunately, will frustrate experiment
subjects to the point they might bit back. At which point, you're
automatically proved that you are indeed staying for the long haul.
Even if you're well.

Problem is, of course that it's then on the record that you have
admitted to insanity. So anything you say subsequently can be dismissed
as insane rantings.

No, the doctors and nurses are not stupid. They do however work within
the confines of their higher orders. So you ARE playing a game, just
it's not the game you THINK it is.

As long as you can hold an intelligent conversation, ask sensible
questions, are patient, participate in activities they may ask of you,
are patient, hold your tongue if they're ignoring you, or pissing you
off, or another patient is pissing you off...

It's difficult enough if there's otherwise nothing wrong with you, and
at the end of the day, even if you ARE ill, they don't actually help.

So sadly, the only people go get out, are either sane, or stable for
long enough to convince them you're not going to blow up anything,
yourself included.

This fares badly for those who really need help, because their
diagnosis never really sees the light of day.