Wednesday, October 14, 2009

Rerun - Where Dumb Psychiatry Meets Dumb Antipsychiatry

Yesterday, in Part V of Spitzer and the DSM, I discussed at length how a major error in the DSM-III of 1980 has gone uncorrected for 29 years. This concerned separating out "recurrent depression" from bipolar, to which it is a close cousin, and lumping it with "chronic depression." As a result, many in the bipolar spectrum are misdiagnosed and spend years leading miserable lives on one failed antidepressant after the other. In light of two reader comments to yesterday's piece and the importance of the issue, I thought it appropriate to republish this from February:

In my last blog, I urged that we consider issues in terms of "smart vs dumb" rather than "pro vs anti." In the final analysis, dumb psychiatry and dumb antipsychiatry serve the same master. Let me give you an example:

For at least three decades, it has been widely accepted that prescribing an antidepressant (with no mood stabilizer) to someone with bipolar runs a strong risk of flipping a patient into mania or speeding up the cycle or both. The American Psychiatric Association in it's 2002 Practice Guideline for treating bipolar issues a blanket warning against this practice.

The catch is that it is often difficult to distinguish unipolar depression from bipolar depression. The result is that too many of us with bipolar are misdiagnosed with unipolar depression and prescribed meds that make us worse.

There is an additional twist to this catch: Many people experience "recurrent" and "highly recurrent" depressions that come and go in a pattern very similar to bipolar cycling. The pioneering diagnostician Emil Kraepelin observed this phenomenon way back in the early twentieth century.

When Kraepelin coined the term, manic-depression, he wasn't merely referring to bipolar. He also included those with recurrent depression. This was the widely accepted view until the DSM-III in 1980 separated out bipolar and lumped recurrent depression with "chronic" depression.

The result is that doctors tend to treat all depressions alike - with predictably disastrous results. This is an example of "dumb" psychiatry, the indiscriminate prescribing of antidepressants to anyone who happens to say they're depressed.

Reformers in the profession, such as former head of the NIMH Frederick Goodwin MD and Nassir Ghaemi MD of Tufts, have long urged that psychiatrists think twice before prescribing antidepressants. The best way to turn certain unipolars into bipolar, they would argue, is to prescribe an antidepressant.

Dr Goodwin and a good many others have campaigned for years to realign the next DSM so that it is more closely in tune with Kraepelin's original conception of manic-depression. This would get doctors to rethink their prescribing practices.

We don't know if change will happen. But no doubt the task force charged with issuing an updated DSM is considering the matter. Indeed, the possibility of a new "bipolar III" diagnosis was the basis of a blog post last week from Furious Seasons, fairly typical of antipsychiatry sentiment:

I think it's been a boon to doctors - who get a patient for life - and Big Pharma - which gets a long-term customer - but I have my doubts about how useful the depression-is-bipolar thing is for patients who wind up on an atypical and an anti-seizure drug when they are dealing with something that's not even in the ballpark of mania.

To respond in brief:

Yes, big pharma would love a customer for life, but to make a case for a drug industry conspiracy one would have to bend time a hundred years. Kraepelin wrote his classic text, "Manic-Depressive Insanity and Paranoia," decades before drug manufactures came up with the first psychiatric meds, and psychiatrists have been arguing ever since where best to carve nature at its joints.

Moving on, bipolar is more accurately a cycling illness, not a polar illness. So is recurrent depression. Thus "something that's not even in the ballpark of mania" is irrelevant. The purpose of treatment is to manage the cycle, bring it under control, not necessarily treat symptoms at one pole or the other.

An antidepressant may work in some patients with recurrent depression. But a logical first option is to consider using a mood stabilizer such as lithium or Depakote or Lamictal.

Once the cycle is under control, it may be possible to consider low-meds or no-meds options in conjunction with cultivating cognitive skills such as mindfulness.

Admittedly, Lamictal had a lot to do with drawing attention to "soft bipolar" several years back, and GSK profited handsomely. But these days the drug has gone generic, along with lithium and Depakote. Thus GSK and others have no financial stake in pushing for an expanded bipolar diagnosis.

If anything, an expanded diagnosis would significantly reduce antidepressant sales. This is why you don't see drug companies sponsoring clinical trials to prove Drs Goodwin and Ghaemi right.

No doubt, some manufacturer will try to jump on the bandwagon with some implausible claim trumpeting the virtues of their house antipsychotic, only to be laughed out of town. But this would be an example of opportunism, not hatching a conspiracy.

As for psychiatrists wanting a patient for life: The best indication is that psychiatrists are driving away their patients. Only a small minority of patients adhere to their meds over the long term. Matching the right meds to the right diagnosis might change this.

So now we return to the issue of smart vs dumb. Dumb psychiatry treats all depressions as the same. So does dumb antipsychiatry. Dumb psychiatry favors preserving psychiatry's status quo. So does dumb antipsychiatry. Ironic, isn't it?


For how I abandoned my ex-wife that I mooched off of for years and other high-crimes and misdemeanors while the crusading Philip Dawdy was busy saving the world, check out this entertaining piece of fiction from Furious Seasons.


Gina Pera said...

"I urged that we consider issues in terms of "smart vs dumb" rather than "pro vs anti." In the final analysis, dumb psychiatry and dumb antipsychiatry serve the same master."

Brilliant John!

I've been on the road and missed the previous posts. Must catch up!


Gina Pera said...

P.S. I don't much enjoy that kind of fiction. It has a toxic effect on my neurons.

John McManamy said...

Hey, Gina. Hope you had a great trip. You gotta tell me all about it. My five earlier pieces on Spitzer and the DSM set the scene for this rerun. I didn't intend it this way, but a historical view sure sharpens your sense of the current issues.

You're gonna love this. Christopher Lane (whom you well admire) interviewed Dawdy back in April on his Psychology Today blog. Dawdy actually said:

"To me, [bipolar II] sounds a whole lot more like depression and agitation than it does manic-depression."

Of course, the guy who coined the term manic-depression (Kraepelin back in the early 1900s) did include softer bipolar as well as unipolar recurrent depression in his definition of manic-depression, a view that stayed current till the DSM-III of 1980 screwed it up.

Apparently, Dawdy didn't realize this. He needs to do his homework - and get out in the real world. It was hard telling Beavis from Butthead apart in that interview.

John McManamy said...

Hey, Gina. It's called amygdala-driven fiction. Someone should donate the poor guy a pair of frontal lobes. :)

Lucy Talikwa said...

Much of interest here of course re: psychiatrists, pharma, terms and turf wars. But one comment you made and I agree with is that bipolar is more accurately a cycling illness than a polar one. It goes without saying, except you accurately did. The cyclist is like someone on a unicycle, with the potential of moving backwards and forwards from deep depression to full-blown mania and it is just a matter of how often or rapidly they stay in any state or in the middle “norm.” Geeze, even before I was diagnosed I would map these repetitions on a graph like an EKG trying to make sense of them… As for the PS Furious Seasons Part, well, let me get going here:
What the hell is the rant beneath the rant all about? I hate crap like this because I am so good at it myself. I have gone back to FS at times only to check its blog list –which is by the way a very odd collection—but in and of itself found the site repugnant. I processed the particular passage that fit in to your article above but I also started sidetracking, looking at the hyperlinks (one of my favorite pastimes). Illogic incarnate. A) The thing about Health Central. He triumphs you were kicked off. Huh? You’re still there… He lists you on his blog list as John’s Bipolar Stories… while he declares his spite. What’s with that? Did you suddenly get back into his good graces? B) He attacks about you for taking money for drug ads, but I was really turned off by his fundraisers. Would he please quit begging, GD-it! C) When I first really got to looking at his site I remember – besides being confused by the content and layout -- turned off by the whole anti- drug crusade. Couldn’t believe it, actually. This was the best of the web from Psych Central? If it weren’t for meds -- a bunch of folks including me, could be DEAD – and yes correct med dosages/usages do take a lot of time and changes and have their risks, but that goes for a lot of other areas of medicine as well. D) Somewhere I got to looking at the Bipolar child thing — Don’t give me any crap about that. I KNOW I was a BP child. I read Soulful Sepulcher’s comments about meds and (the BP and other) child mis-diagnosis, and I feel for her, but I also read her blog for about two weeks and gave up over the self-absorbed soft-core Dawdy anti-pharma anti-psych pity-party (Am I being too harsh here?) and D) About Dawdy himself -- talk about a martyr crusader complex. I’ve seen you get a bit testy at a commenter, but not go at someone like a Rottweiler. At least you have a sense of humor. He needs a good enema. (Sorry, see my blog: Crown Me Queen — I am sarcasm’s handmaiden. I’ll probably regret writing this tomorrow. If I don’t comment for a while it is because I am in remorse mode at the barrel bottom eating oatmeal cookies for being so mean and looking like an idiot.)

herb said...

Hi John,

First, I’d like to continue complimenting you upon your writings, narratives and efforts of more than a decade that we’ve know each other. Your pieces continue to be very original and certainly thought provoking as well as most times positive and nurturing.

This recent piece prompted me to check back on the investigative re-reporter and something crossed my mind. I’m happy to read that his feline is doing well. I thought there for a moment he was about to start another fund raiser this time for his cat which brings me to this point.

A fund raiser four times a year at $4,000 amounts to $16,000 or more per year. I’m curious as to whether he’s ever divulged he has a “501(c)(3)” status for those monies. If not, I certainly hope he declares these sums on his income taxes.

I certainly wouldn’t want to read in some newspaper about an investigative reporter exposing the improprieties and lack of disclosure on the part of this award winning investigative re-reporter. Wouldn’t something like that come full circle?


Elizabeth said...

This brings up a problem for young people in particular. I commented at one point last spring when my ex sent my 16-year-old daughter to a psychiatrist working in her therapist's practice. Despite knowledge that I am bipolar, the psychiatrist immediately prescribed an antidepressant. Luckily my daughter said no.

At 38, when I first went to a psychiatrist, I could see that my depressions were cyclical. A young person simply doesn't have the history. A wrong diagnosis can spell disaster, and for a teenager in a depression, there is no way to make a right one. Young people go through too many changes, both biological and situational, to be able to decide if a depression is clinical, let alone if it is bipolar. Yet there they are, passing out the SSRIs like candy. Still. But then again, I wouldn't want her on an atypical either, with which I've also had bad experiences.

It's a sad fact that I have to warn my daughter away from the psychiatrists, but I do. I keep my fingers crossed that she hasn't inherited my disease, and look into ways to deal with bipolar other than the psychmeds, because all too often they're worse than the disease. They certainly have been for me. And if my daughter happens to be bipolar, I want to have something to help her with besides a trip to the psychiatrist.

There are too many stupid pscychiatrists out there. That's not a theoretical position. It's just plain sad fact.

John McManamy said...

Hi, Elizabeth. Absolutely agree. One of my readers informed me that the problem is not so much that the meds leave a lot to be desired (which they do), but that these meds in the hands of bad psychiatrists are a disaster. With a good psychiatrist, meds (the right ones for the right illness) can deliver satisfactory results. The problem is that there are a lot of bad psychiatrists out there.

Unfortunately, you and your daughter have had personal experience with this. That fact that you had bipolar should have sent up a red flag with your daughter's psychiatrist. It was inexcusable for her to prescribe an antidepressant. Who knows? Maybe the antidepressant would have worked, but in terms of a risk-reward assessment, the antidepressant was not an option.

A good psychiatrist, I am sure, could help your daughter. Alas! Where to find a good psychiatrist? I hear you loud and clear. Please keep commenting. This is how we all learn.

John McManamy said...

Hi, Herb. You raise a very interesting point. Dawdy is forever attacking me on the basis that my website has Pharma advertising. He has never substantively rebutted any information I have provided in anything I've written. His lies are based on the proposition that I carry Pharma advertising; therefore anything I say can't be true.

Now if he were to point to a smoking gun showing that the advertising influenced what I wrote, then he would have a point. But that will never happen, as I am hiding no smoking guns. People can view the ads, view my content, and make up their own minds. I have a full disclosure policy on my website. People know where my money comes from, and they are free to judge my credibility accordingly.

As to Dawdy's disclosures, the point you raise, here is my take: Dawdy's FS income is obviously not enough to sustain him. So where is he getting the rest of his money from? What source of income is free up his time so he doesn't have to find work but instead can write his blog? Is he living on disability? Family charity? A secret donor? Income from investments?

Ordinarily, I wouldn't ask and I wouldn't care. But seeing how Dawdy has so small-mindedly attacked me and made up his own lies in the process, it's only fair to apply his own standards to himself.

Here's a classic Dawdy lie: Dawdy presumed to write in his blog that my ex-wife supported me, to which I repaid by leaving her, which is blatantly false. A psychiatrist or a psychologist would cite this as an example of projecting - namely him mistakenly assigning his own shortcomings to someone else (me). So, I gotta wonder. Where's Dawdy's money coming from? He needs to be honest and start disclosing.

John McManamy said...

Hey, Lucy. I love it. I have to split my reply in two. Part I

To go down your points:

Yep, cycling is key, whether you chose to call it depression or bipolar. It's all about the dynamic of the illness, what drives it. Knowing that, then treatment and prevention can properly focus on keeping the cycle under control. The polar thing may be descriptive, but it creates the false impression that mania is a component of bipolar - a myth that unprincipled idiots like Dawdy persist in perpetuating, even if it means their readers will get the wrong information and will continue to suffer.

Speaking of unprincipled idiots: You will notice in Dawdy's rant that he didn't respond to any of the points in my original blog piece. I kept the original article non-personal, not referring to Dawdy by name, and referred to dumb antipsychiatry rather than him as a dumb antipsychiatrist. But his post was so blatantly incorrect and misinformed that I needed to respond with facts, point by point. Dawdy could have responded with a point by point rebuttal, but instead he went postal, which is typical for him. He brags that he is off his meds and it shows. Moreover, he has a host of unresolved personal issues going on. This may explain why he panders to angry people in a victim mindset. The blaming everything on Pharma spiel goes down well with them. These people prefer to stay angry rather than get well.

I missed it the first time I read it, but one of his crazy accusations in his response to my piece was that I had never written anything about schizophrenia. Huh? Here was my piece about how both dumb psychiatry and dumb antipsychiatry get the manic-depression spectrum completely wrong - with terrible consequences to innocent patients - and the most intelligent thing he can come up with - on top of the lies he made up about my ex-wife and other aspects of my personal life - was that I don't write about schizophrenia. (Actually I have written about schizophrenia, even when I used to exclusively write about mood disorders, it's just that Dawdy is too lazy to read.)

Re his comment about my blog being shit-canned at HealthCentral, well ... as you know I am still there. But Dawdy is delusional about his own life as a crusading journalist, so it's possible that the same voices in his head told him I was no longer at HealthCentral. He cold have checked his "facts" and asked me, but that's too much hard work. Besides, his voices always trump the facts.

As for the bipolar child thing, it's clear he's not listened to one parent of a bipolar child. He once penned a reply to the effect that he visited a state mental hospital - what's that got to do with getting out in the real world and finding out about bipolar kids?

Speaking of bipolar kids, he ranted and raved in a reply (back when I was naive enough to comment on FS) that I needed to be talking to people other than NAMI parents. Huh? To Dawdy and his claque, NAMI is in league with the devil. If Dawdy weren't so in thrall to the voices in his head, he would know that most of the parents I listened to were affiliated with CABF, not NAMI. I could go on and on what an idiot he is ...

John McManamy said...

Hi, Lucy. Part Two:

As to best of web from PsychCentral, Grohol went over to the dark side some time ago. He has been Dawdy's chief legitimizer since day one. Grohol gets a weird kick out of hanging out with the bad boys. Grohol frequently cites Dawdy as an authority, and at least twice he has bashed me citing Dawdy as the authority and linking to his blog and not mine. Screw that for a joke. Grohol can burn in hell. In July, Grohol actually handed out an outstanding journalism award to Dawdy.

You and I and other intelligent people can see right through Dawdy. For instance: Dawdy spent two years telling people about this Zyprexa story that HE worked on. All he did was re-report a NY Times piece. Grohol fell for it and handed him an award. Where Grohol gets off thinking he can hand out awards is beyond me. Like Dawdy, he doesn't know his ass from his elbow, doesn't do his homework, doesn't get out in the real world.

Grohol tries to set himself up as the middle-of-the-road commentator, which is a lie. At least with Dawdy, what you see is what you get. Grohol should just declare himself in the antipsychiatry camp once and for all, but then his advertisers would desert him.

Back to Dawdy, he once sent me a private email demanding that I not refer to him as an antipsychiatry blogger. Huh?

When I replied, "Why, or you'll say I beat my wife?" he simply did not get it.

As for Soulful Selpulcher, Dawdy's Mini-Me, well, I'll leave her alone.

"Dawdy needs a good enema" - right on point. No sense of humor, which is very strange for a writer. Also, no sense of irony, which is a writer's stock-in-trade.

There, Lucy: My rant makes yours look like a love letter, so you can rest easy. I prefer to focus on matters that give us an insight into what makes us tick, but every once in a while we need to call out these idiots. It's comforting to know we're not alone, and it was reassuring hearing from you.

You will note I keep my rants confined to comments. Thanks for letting me vent. I needed that. :)

cretin said...

May I vent a little now that we are on the subject of Furious Seasons? A recent post suggested that psychosis is a "learning experience". Something that harkens back to the days of Freudian psychoanalysis that my doctor said should have died back in the 1950's. Anyway, I repsonded with an emphatic "bullshit" and attempted to explain why I was driven to that expletive. My experience with psychosis is far too distressing and illogical to formulate any sort of "lesson". I described it as a heart attack of the brain that usually leads to damage (loss of cognitive function, something I know all too well unfortunately). I was told by the FS minions that I was using "generalities" and to prove damage to the brain occurs. "Generalities"? Coming from these folkes? They live in their "generality" that mental illness is nothing to fret about or treat. "Just grow up!", is what they would say, or just enjoy it. I offered a rebuttal for the sake of maybe setting the record straight with some, turned my back, and have avoided the site since so as not to get my blood pressure up. I just hope FS has a limited audience and that not too many are poisoned by its misinformation. I fear too many people visit the site for information about their or a loved one's illness and leave with the wrong impression. Hopefully they find yours and learn what it is really about.

John McManamy said...

Hey, Cretin. I hear you loud and clear. Interesting about your heart attack of the brain analogy. I used the same terminology for major depression. The brain is in extreme crisis and one's safety and very life is hanging by a thread.

I do acknowledge we can incorporate our bad experiences into our personal growth, but this comes later down the line, not when we are overcome with a total breakdown in the operating system. The idiots that Dawdy panders to do not appreciate this distinction.

Unfortunately, FS is the star blog in the whole antipsychiatry movement. Every nutjob who takes five minutes to set up a blog links to him. Unfortunately, this means a lot of people new to their diagnosis stumble on his blog, get the wrong impression about mental illness, and make bad decisions.

Dawdy would call this freedom of speech. I call it total lack of responsibility.

Anyway, I hope more people do find their way to this blog. I don't claim to have a monopoly on the truth. We're all intelligent people learning from each other - that's what I work to promote.

Thank you for your kind words.

Charles Sakai said...

Thank you for elevating the dialogue on a particularly fascinating aspect of bipolar disorder. Before my association with DBSA, I wouldn't be able to recognize bipolar behavior if it slapped me in the face (for example, my ex-brother-in-law drank himself to death years before I realized that he was full-blown bipolar I complicated by PTSD). I know that it is real, and will not go away if you deny that the problem exists. Also, I believe that the DSM-IV classifications are oversimplified and do not do justice to the bipolar spectrum you described so well in your book.

John McManamy said...

Thanks, Charles. Hope things are going well for you out in CO.

Jinny said...

hosting a personal attack on your blog of another blogger is in poor taste...the relish you show in so doing is disturbing. You might say the blogger returned the favor, but please look at where it began. Both of you are behaving like adolescents, but it's hard to ignore a first blow.

John McManamy said...

Hey, Jinny. If you can show me how I am behaving like an adolescent, I will be glad to accept your counsel and modify my behavior. But I need the facts, not an unsubstantiated claim.

Paul said...


You're an adult, no? Is it possible for you just to ignore Mr. Dawdy/Furious Seasons? I try to teach my pre/adolescent kids a variety of methods to handle people that annoy them or get under their skin. Stirring the pot isn't one of those techniques.

I actually think your comments above are rather mean and childish. Agree or disagree with with Mr. Dawdy, but personal attacks do nothing but tarnish your reputation imho.

John McManamy said...

Hi, Paul. I hope you also counsel your kids that when a bully tries to steal your lunch money you fight back. Your kids will have much happier childhoods that way.

I also appreciate the wisdom of keeping your head, but you are in no position to judge whether I've been mean and childish. You need to listen to your own counsel.

Sorry for sounding so rude, but you were excessively quick in judging me.

herb said...

Dear Francesca Allan,

I’m glad to see your up and about and posting and seemingly still fascinated with my differences of opinion. I do hope all is going well for you.

Unlike the “Mini me’s” I do find John’s writing efforts original, interesting, investigational and conveying positive mental health attributes and often times with much needed humor when compared to some other so called journalists.

Yup I still use my own name and identifier so that you and others like Dawdy the alleged investigative re-reporter in my opinion, doesn’t continue his hearsay and fabricated facts based upon subterfuge postings by others as if it were my writings that he supposedly investigated and shared the facts.

There are some forums that do allow differences of opinion even when the web mistress’ skirt blows up in the air in a tizzy or that of the webmaster if he’s wearing one (joke).

As for John being the “go to” guy I’m more inclined after a decade or more to feel comfortable with someone who talks about and shares of himself and his experiences as well as professional collaborations than someone who I question ever having a serious chronic and recurrent mood disorder and having what I read as a biased position.

Maybe you’ve missed The Rest of the Story and the communication I’ve had in the past with Philip and a note I sent to Stephany who turns out to be one of his fetch persons. By the way my note was never posted to Stephany’s site although she felt more inclined to share it with Dawdy who in all his so called innocence and proclivity of pureness saw fit to attack me. I guess at that point he was the acting editor responding and not the journalist.

"The Rest of the Story"

"The Rest of the Story" only another issue...

So John and your readership, please forgive my language but if anyone strikes me as self-serving Dawdy fills the bill and to which I’ll add he’s full of shit and enjoys his confrontations especially unchallenged when he only has to cater to his worshippers. And good for you too John and thanks for bringing up his Cyber bullying.

What his worshippers also lack in understanding is their charitable offerings to him could better serve the mental health community by the donations being made to research if one were inclined to donate. The re-reporting he offers up can be found on the Internet. There’s also the point to be made that these people are enabling him. If he’s supposedly able bodied then maybe his productive efforts should first be directed to seeking regular employment to pay his bills rather than at the expense and generosity of his readership and in his free time sharing his bias. But then again he’s interpreted and exhibited my remarks in the past as “hate” and “hateful” as opposed to differences in thought, viewpoint and/or opinions.

Please don’t make me laugh about Dawdy and some of his blog posts such as the recent postings relating to Paxil Birth Defects. Dawdy’s obviously not a parent or one who knows much about pregnancy. Dawdy should also consider writing about the multitude of other medications causing birth defects to balance his views? I can give him a fact that more than 40 years ago before there were psychotropic medications and more recently with the birth of our grandchildren that our doctors were warning us to stay off all medications prior to and during pregnancy.

So what’s the big deal other than Dawdy’s normal subliminal attempts at alarmism, fear mongering and his obvious biases? Dawdy, nothings changed about cigarette smoking either. How about some blog posts about cigarettes and their detrimental effects to the individual as well as the fetus?


John McManamy said...

Hi, Herb. Many thanks for your support. We've both borne the brunt of This unprincipled rumor-mongrer's outrageous lies. His site has hosted expressions of physical violence against me. You know the history. Thanks for being counted.

Anonymous said...

Dawdy calls himself a journalist yet when it is put to him that the Paxil/Seroxat debate has been engineered by plaintiff lawyers with vested interests, Phil Dawdy backs away - why?

Take for one example the BBC Panorama programmes, but instead of listening to the dogma take a peek at a little discussed podcast by Shelley Jofre speaking at Sheffield University.

listen carefully link here -

Clearly the BBC knew all SSRI's were causing similar problems but they took an editorial decision & choose to target GSK

If Dawdy was as objective as he likes to think he is then if he is a professional he should bring this to the fore.

Who really is behind this litigation, how many journalists have been bought by CoS?

h said...

Hi John,

Oh my goodness. I couldn’t believe what I just read this morning. I nearly spit up my breakfast drink as I read Dawdy’s words which almost paraphrased what I stated to him almost one year to the date and for which he went ballistic and also banned me.

“If NPR is not interested in contrary points of view, then it really needs to get back in touch with its journalistic values. It would've been an easy thing for the reporter to pick up the phone and interview someone...” --- Philip Dawdy

NPR's Biased Reporting On Mental Health

I questioned him about his journalism and specifically cited the definition of the word. Then he went back to re-read what I had communicated to him and the man lost it. Once again, here’s what triggered my similar differences with Dawdy and the events leading up to why he flew off the handle.

"The Rest of the Story"

I see once again Dawdy’s dishing it out to others and yet his inability to accept exactly the same criticism.

I also can’t stop laughing at the responses of his “Mini me’s” on his forum as if to think I’m picking on their icon of Rev. Jim Jones. Their herd mentality denies them the rationality to the fact that obviously Dawdy based upon his writings, actions and my commentary that he’s “not interested in contrary points of view” which is exactly what I have maintained and now he rails about others as I have expressed about him.

What a hoot. What goes around comes around. I find humor in all this even though Dawdy didn’t intend to be humorous.


John McManamy said...

OMG! This is too funny for words. Thanks for sharing this, Herb.