The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
See Cruise start to puff-piece War of The Worlds and then go spectacularly off the rails when the interviewer starts to ask about his personal view on life.
Goes from "hyuck-hyuck Spielberg is great" schmooze into a finger-pointy, edge of seat ranting when he tries to explain why Scientology is more valid than pyschiatry.
[URL]http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8343367/[/URL]
"I've never agreed with pyschiatry at all, it's a pseudo-science"
Goes from "hyuck-hyuck Spielberg is great" schmooze into a finger-pointy, edge of seat ranting when he tries to explain why Scientology is more valid than pyschiatry.
[URL]http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8343367/[/URL]
"I've never agreed with pyschiatry at all, it's a pseudo-science"
Page:
How did I manage to double post 7 minutes apart?
Wow, he's so "mental"
Yes I stumbled across that and watched it earlier today, wow it didnt really make me want to go see his movie.
Blank wrote:
> Flock wrote:
> He does have a point amidst all that crap though, drugs do only mask
> the problem while it exists and aren't ideal.
>
> That's not true. Drugs can cure what we call "mental"
> illnesses. They're just a temporary cure, because as soon as they
> leave the system the chemical proportions return to what they were.
There's no such thing as a temporary cure technically, either you're cured or you're not(i hope i've got that definition right) drugs are a treatment for symptoms but they dont actually fix the problem.
What i was getting at was in most cases drugs hide the symptoms and effects while time fixes the problem long term as in the case of Brooke Shields who was suffering from a natural biological inbalance which would have passed in time, the drugs just helped her get on with her life while her body found some sort of normality.
I was told earlier this year that there are two types of depression, biological and reactive and that while drugs can help biological until it either passes or is under control, reactive or social(which of course is also biological to an exstent) can be treated with counselling but will never be fixed by drugs in any sense as the imbalance isn't the dominant factor.
I agree with everthing else you said.
* I may have repeated myself there but i was writing and then editing bits in*
> Flock wrote:
> He does have a point amidst all that crap though, drugs do only mask
> the problem while it exists and aren't ideal.
>
> That's not true. Drugs can cure what we call "mental"
> illnesses. They're just a temporary cure, because as soon as they
> leave the system the chemical proportions return to what they were.
There's no such thing as a temporary cure technically, either you're cured or you're not(i hope i've got that definition right) drugs are a treatment for symptoms but they dont actually fix the problem.
What i was getting at was in most cases drugs hide the symptoms and effects while time fixes the problem long term as in the case of Brooke Shields who was suffering from a natural biological inbalance which would have passed in time, the drugs just helped her get on with her life while her body found some sort of normality.
I was told earlier this year that there are two types of depression, biological and reactive and that while drugs can help biological until it either passes or is under control, reactive or social(which of course is also biological to an exstent) can be treated with counselling but will never be fixed by drugs in any sense as the imbalance isn't the dominant factor.
I agree with everthing else you said.
* I may have repeated myself there but i was writing and then editing bits in*
He was a little arrogant there with this Matt guy.
Matt knew people who had benefited from use of these drugs and Tom seemed to dismiss it off the mark.
Seems like the guy's gotten all caught up in the zeal of finding his new "religion" of scientology.
Matt knew people who had benefited from use of these drugs and Tom seemed to dismiss it off the mark.
Seems like the guy's gotten all caught up in the zeal of finding his new "religion" of scientology.
Flock wrote:
> He does have a point amidst all that crap though, drugs do only mask
> the problem while it exists and aren't ideal.
That's not true. Drugs can cure what we call "mental" illnesses. They're just a temporary cure, because as soon as they leave the system the chemical proportions return to what they were. And as far as not being "ideal" is concerned, of course they're not ideal. Nothing ever is. It's a subjective notion, it can never be achieved. If you only stop when you reach perfection, you'll never, ever stop.
His blanket statement "there's no such thing as a chemical imbalance" shows he hasn't got a clue what he's talking about. He claims to have researched the subject, and if he had gone into any depth he would have found lots of papers on chemical imbalance, lots of studies that find a pretty damn good correlation between certain levels of certain chemicals in the brain and certain mental illnesses.
And his whole spiel about "the history of psychiatry" is nonsense. Yes, stupid things have been done, but what difference does it make now? Look at the history of anything and you'll find mistakes. Traditional medicine for example. Look at the history of Tom Cruise, you'll find a bad film or two no doubt. That's a reason never to watch anything he's in ever again?
> He does have a point amidst all that crap though, drugs do only mask
> the problem while it exists and aren't ideal.
That's not true. Drugs can cure what we call "mental" illnesses. They're just a temporary cure, because as soon as they leave the system the chemical proportions return to what they were. And as far as not being "ideal" is concerned, of course they're not ideal. Nothing ever is. It's a subjective notion, it can never be achieved. If you only stop when you reach perfection, you'll never, ever stop.
His blanket statement "there's no such thing as a chemical imbalance" shows he hasn't got a clue what he's talking about. He claims to have researched the subject, and if he had gone into any depth he would have found lots of papers on chemical imbalance, lots of studies that find a pretty damn good correlation between certain levels of certain chemicals in the brain and certain mental illnesses.
And his whole spiel about "the history of psychiatry" is nonsense. Yes, stupid things have been done, but what difference does it make now? Look at the history of anything and you'll find mistakes. Traditional medicine for example. Look at the history of Tom Cruise, you'll find a bad film or two no doubt. That's a reason never to watch anything he's in ever again?
Except bad publicity.
Spectacularly off the rails my a**e!
He does have a point amidst all that crap though, drugs do only mask the problem while it exists and aren't ideal.
He comes across as arrogant with his "I know and you dont" attitude and for someone who says he is happy it doesn't come across.
All publicity is good publicity i suppose
He does have a point amidst all that crap though, drugs do only mask the problem while it exists and aren't ideal.
He comes across as arrogant with his "I know and you dont" attitude and for someone who says he is happy it doesn't come across.
All publicity is good publicity i suppose
See Cruise start to puff-piece War of The Worlds and then go spectacularly off the rails when the interviewer starts to ask about his personal view on life.
Goes from "hyuck-hyuck Spielberg is great" schmooze into a finger-pointy, edge of seat ranting when he tries to explain why Scientology is more valid than pyschiatry.
[URL]http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8343367/[/URL]
"I've never agreed with pyschiatry at all, it's a pseudo-science"
Goes from "hyuck-hyuck Spielberg is great" schmooze into a finger-pointy, edge of seat ranting when he tries to explain why Scientology is more valid than pyschiatry.
[URL]http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8343367/[/URL]
"I've never agreed with pyschiatry at all, it's a pseudo-science"
Page: