Search This Blog

Wednesday, August 08, 2007

Kettle and Pot Boiling Over

A few days ago, the Pot was calling the Kettle black, but now they're both boiling over and scalding me! That's what I get for not staying away from the hot stove.

The "Pot" in this case is Dr. Sanity. The "Kettle" is Larisa Alexandrovna who runs the blog "".

Sanity described one of Alexandrovna's posts as histrionic. Alexandrovna is threatening to file an ethics complaint against Sanity:

...And this is a professional opinion then is it? Interesting, because the professional opinion of a 2 bit shrink distributed in order to smear a journalist for political reasons sounds to me like exactly the type of extremism I am talking about and smells terribly familiar of the Soviet stench. It is also a very good reason reason to file a an ethics complaint against the good doctor.

In the Soviet Union - a police state - medical experts often trotted out to discredit dissidents and free thinkers by applying such standards of medical practice. She appears to be proving my point rather nicely.

I suggest the good Dr. clarify her statements rather quickly because I will file an ethics complaint against a medical "expert" for using her expertise and professional authority to attack me in public and smear me as mentally unstable for my political views. ...

Sanity basically told Alexandrovna to stuff it:
You are a fraud. You wouldn't mind a police state at all as long as you and your friends were in charge. Your threats towards me and those of your commenters demonstrate a obvious desire to silence anyone who dares to have an opinion differing from your own. I would also suggest you hone your reading skills since the post in question merely uses your confused and convoluted rhetoric ("It's official, we are in a police state..."!!!!) as an example of the kind that is often found on your side of the political spectrum.
Foolhardily, I made a comment on Sanity's site that pointed out that, in my opinion, Sanity was attacking the messenger as well as the message:
Dr. Sanity wrote: "I would also suggest you [Alexandrovna] hone your reading skills since the post in question merely uses your confused and convoluted rhetoric ("It's official, we are in a police state..."!!!!) as an example of the kind that is often found on your side of the political spectrum."

That doesn't seem accurate to me since later in the post Dr. Sanity also wrote, "[t]hus our adolescent drama queen linked to above can say with absolute sincerity and passion...". That seems to me to explicitly link Alexandrovna to the rest of the post and the "diagnosis" of hysteria.
Sanity didn't think much of my comment and wrote a long response (my snarky comments are interspersed):
Bret, several points.

1. Her [Alexandrovna's] post is in my PROFESSIONAL opinion a perfect example of the kind of hysterical rhetoric that passes for intellectual thought on the left.
Got that.
2. In writing that post she is behaving like an adolescent drama queen (or, didn't you bother to read her post about the police state we are in?) and I called her on it. "Adolescent drama queen" is not an approved psychiatric diagnosis as far as I know.
Yeah, I read her post. But did Sanity read my comment? I wasn't complaining about her calling Alexandrovna an adolescent drama queen, rather I was pointing out that she was linking the messenger to the message and that Alexandrovna's reading skills were adequately honed for this purpose.
3. "hysteria" is not a diagnosis either but a perfectly acceptable descriptive term to describe overly exaggerated emotional behavior. Psychologically, the exaggerated behavior is specifically and often unconsciously used by the individual to obscure some aspect of reality that is unpleasant or unacceptable. Usually it is the case that it obscures some unpleasant truth about one's self (e.g. a person likes to think of themselves as being a champion of freedom and justice, but actually is a closet tyrant and only cares about their own freedom and is intolerant of other's speech)
I know that "hysteria" is not a diagnosis. That'd be why I put diagnosis in quotation marks in my comment.
4. You know the expression "if the shoe fits, wear it" ? Well Alexandrovna is not only wearing it, she's modeling it proudly to the world in her subsequent post. Fine. She can say whatever she wants about me and even disagree with anything I say; and she can be as ridiculous as she likes--it is a free country after all in spite of the BushHitler Police State and all the oppression we have to suffer under--but I will continue to describe HER behavior using the skills in which I have been trained.
I don't wear shoes (literally, as my co-blogger can attest - why do you think I moved to San Diego?) Alexandrovna did not use the term BushHitler. Sanity was and is putting words in Alexandrovna's mouth and claiming she modelled shoes that she never even wore. And those shoes are really ugly!
5. Ask yourself who is trying to censor whom here. I describe her behavior and call her to account for her exaggerated fearmongering rhetoric and she talks about "reporting" me to the state board for some sort of unethical conduct. Good luck with that. Clearly she hasn't a clue about what psychiatry or psychiatrists do or even what a psychiatric diagnosis is. My guess is that I hit a sensitive nerve and that she knows exactly what I was trying to say and that it cut through her emotionalism to the real person beneath. It must be very upsetting for her. Tough.
In my opinion, both are clearly trying to suppress the speech of the other. One through appeal to authority and ad hominem intimidation, the other via an ethics board. Bad, bad girls, both.
6. And here's a non-diagnosis for you: You are an idiot. I don't think that's in the DSM, but it sure describes a lot of the behavior of trolls like yourself.
I'm wondering if it's possible for Sanity to write anything without resorting to insult. I'm also wondering which behavior she's referring to. Me making a comment?
7. You have a nice day, too. Preferably somewhere else.
You got it, babe. Since I don't think my comment was particularly abrasive, I have to conclude that Sanity wants a pristine echo chamber to sound off in. I'm not exactly banned, but clearly very unwelcome, so per her request I'll stay away. At least she didn't delete my comments like some other bloggers we all know.

I sure hope Sanity doesn't work with mentally ill patients. I'm imagining that her bedside manner might leave a wee bit to be desired.


Anonymous said...

It gets really ugly. Go see my second post on this. Larisa Alexandrovna:)

And while I disagree with you on the kettle element here, I have no problem with you expressing your opinion on my blog (which I believe you did, Bret. yes?).

And yes, Larisa Alexandrovna is my real first name and real patronymic. I simply do not use a surname for my pen name.:)

Bret said...

Yes, ugly indeed.

Yes, I commented on your blog and your response was calm and thoughtful, in fact the very opposite of hysterical. Thanks for that.

I'll update the post to reflect that that's your real name.

Larisa Alexandrovna said...

First, I figured out how to use this commenting system. Second, not sure if you saw the two updates... but this is the same group that called me a Judenr├Ąte. Look it up. It is such an ugly thing to say to someone who is a Jew, there is no comparison with other racial slurs. Anyway, I will try to be more hysterical next time you drop by... you know, just to keep up appearances:)

Bret said...

Yes, I saw both updates to your post entitled "The Surreal Life of Dr. Sanity Continues...". The Sanity Squad certainly seems way overly incensed with you. Hang in there. I certainly understand your concern regarding Santy's treatment of patients. Hopefully, she manages to control herself around them.

erp said...

Why oh why do women always revert to the stereotypical hysterical behavior of cat fights. It plays right into men's deeply held belief that we take everything personally and see an attack on our convictions as an attack on our person.

I'm sickened by these strings.

Brendan said...


Stereotypical like your flower avatar?

heh, just joking.


I think the good dr. intentionally stirs the pot in this fashion, as far as I can tell. It seems to please her comment-tards to no end. I think it is important to keep the real issue front and center by exposing the straw men she relies on to divert attention from her errors.

Bret said...

brendan wrote: "I think the good dr. intentionally stirs the pot in this fashion, as far as I can tell."

Maybe so. She certainly has a unique style, coupling the psychoanalysis with the frenzied rhetoric.

I would've continued reading and commenting there for the purpose of keeping "the real issue[s] front and center by exposing the straw men she relies on" but she's asked me to go away. Alphie claims she banned him from commenting.

So that leaves you. Good luck! Thanks for defending me in your 11:22 am comment there.

BTW, I don't find erp stereotypical at all. In fact, even though I've seen her comments for a long time, I only recently realized that erp is a woman.

erp said...

bret, I'm taking that as a compliment.

Brendan might be referring to my flower as an avatar because of this post. If not, then I don't know what he means.

erp said...

Sorry, here's the link.

Bret said...

Your comments here and on other blogs all have a picture of a white rose attached to them these days. I'm confident that's what brendan was referring to.

You should take it as a compliment that I never contemplated your gender.

Larisa Alexandrovna said...

Why is ERP the only one with flowers? I am the hysterical one after all.

Will you be commenting on the puppet cast posting of today that Brendan pointed out on my blog?

I also read the comments about the film. The funny thing is, the people who run "screw loose change" attempted at first to discredit press for truth... then they ended up supporting it and claiming it was more dangerous because it was not a conspiracy theory. Not sure why dangerous, but there you have it. They also agreed that Pakistan required more investigation based on the obvious issues raised in the film. So when an anti-CT site actually ends up supporting your film, I would have to say that puts it exactly the opposite of CT.

The film explores the work of the Jersey Girls in attempting to force and investigation and asks serious questions about Pakistan's involvement. I wrote the Pakistan part, because I cover the intel beat. Watch the film and tell me if you really think it a CT. It is disturbing. Yes. It is frightening because of the questions raised. Yes. But it makes no claims and suggests no theory whatsoever.

I think the whole thing is available on google and you can buy it (wink) from Amazon.

Bret said...

larisa wrote: "Why is ERP the only one with flowers?"

ERP signed in to comment under her ID and her blogger profile picture is that white flower. I've never uploaded any photo for my profile so no picture appears. I'm not sure how you signed in, but apparently blogger doesn't know how to access a picture for you if there is one.

larisa also wrote: "Will you be commenting on the puppet cast posting of today that Brendan pointed out on my blog? "

Do you mean the SigmundCarlAndAlfred post entitled "Pipsqueakova"? After seeing that derogatory title, I only skimmed the post, which was clearly designed to harass you some more. I think they promised more tomorrow. I'll probably skim that too.

Between Sanity and SC&A including posts and comments, they've now spent tens of thousands of words on you. I'm thinking you should sorta feel honoured. At least I'd feel honoured (but I have a very thick skin). You must have a lot of influence and/or a wide following for them to consider you such a clear and present danger.

I'm definitely curious now, so I may try to watch your flick, but it won't be for a bit - I'm not sure when I'll get time.

erp said...

I don't want to get caught up in the present controversy, but if a new thread is started debating left and right ideology, count me in. I don't do ad hominem attacks, so if you don't like what I say, let me know why. Name calling or nasty cracks turn me off -- literally.

Larisa, if you use Blogger, it's very easy to upload a picture. It can be anything, a photo, cartoon, drawing, whatever. Good luck. I'll look forward to seeing your choice.

Larisa Alexandrovna said...

ERP: I don't use blogger, sadly. But if I did, I would likely use the picture of me I have up at my place or you can pick one from this silly collection:

And yes, of course I would love to have a discussion with actual sane adults, regardless of their political view points. Some of my dear friends are actually neo-conservatives, which takes a great deal of tolerance on my part:)

As for Sigmund's psychosis... all I can say is, read here... a reader at my site posted it:

You really have to read through all of it to see the level of hate and bile this guys gives up. He even posts attacks at PJ media. This is not a well person me thinks. Could it be that Dr. Patty is his shrink?

I read through his latest and realized he was likely sniffing flue when he wrote it.

Larisa Alexandrovna said...

By the way, here are some good comments on the film:

erp said...

Larisa, do you know about the history, pre and post, of Pajamas Media? It ain't pretty.

A question for you. Can you name any place where socialism succeeded? PS: I don't consider the Scandinavian countries successes.

Larisa Alexandrovna said...

ERP: Um, how did I suddenly become a spokesperson for Socialism?

And no, don't know the history of PJs... dish woman... what went on?

erp said...

A thousand pardons, I inferred from the comments above that you leaned left in the political spectrum. Glad to know you're on the side of the angels.

Pajama Media? For starters, check Ann Althouse's blog. She was in at the beginning and will provide lots of links. Let's say that very few of the players covered themselves with glory.

Bret said...

I see from your link that "siggy" basically devotes his efforts to insulting people such as yourself. I never really read him before and won't bother in the future either (along with Dr. Sanity). I'm enjoying your site though. While we have very different perspectives, you explain your position well.

Could you provide a bit more info on the pajamas media thing to get me started? The word pajamas doesn't appear on Althouse's blog.

Larisa Alexandrovna said...

ERM, you are correct. I do lean left, but having escaped from the Commie regime, I am no fan of any type of authoritarian state. Socialism sadly has come to equal Communism and neither is much better than fascism.

I believe basically that if people have to pay taxes, like we do here in the states, then we have the right as consumers to determine where our money goes.

In the US, however, that is not the case. The corporations have more power and rights than the citizen, who is forced to pay taxes for "products and services" they do not want and are denied the "products and services" that they do want. It makes no logical sense, unless we are forced to face the reality that a state who merges its self interests with corporate interests is not one usually called a democracy.

So my position is basically the following (very high level), listed as sort of statements (you decide on the label):

1. All forms of centralized power work against the people, although representative government can work well if the people are indeed represented.

2. Basic survival needs should not be delivered by a for-profit structure, like water, for example, delivered by Halliburton, for example. Same goes for law enforcement needs.

3. Companies who make their bottom line demands by profiting off of war are dangerous to a democracy, because they make their biggest profits during war time.

4. Illegal immigration allows for human rights abuses and allows for the importation of slave labor. It is a human rights issue first foremost.

5. The Constitution is more important than any single person or office and it must be defended if we are to have a democracy. Party above country is the Soviet Union, if memory serves.

6. Voting rights, free press, civil liberties, and human rights are all key foundations of democracy.

7. Separation of church and state are necessary to the survival of a democracy.

8. The death penalty is amoral because a). we cannot be 100% sure that every single person put to death is truly guilty or rightly sentenced and b). because we can never be sure that human beings with power won't abuse it.

9. Terrorism is not a country, it is a type of crime and should be treated as a criminal act, not an act of war (with but a few exceptions).

10. There is no single property more valuable nor more fully my own than my body. The government or religious groups or anyone else has no right to tell me what I can and cannot do with my body. I am pro-choice, but also responsible choices.

I could go on, but you get the idea and that should be enough for a label of sorts:)

Also, I don't know if SiggySanty attacks "people such as myself" per se, as I don't know the people. Rather, SiggySanty seem to use the lie, distort, and character assassination approach to debate without ever actually debating any argument on its merits.

Listen, can Bret start another thread because I really dislike having any discussion under SiggySanty and gang crap above.


Oh, as for pjs... I don't know. I thought you did, which is why I asked. Pjs appears to be conservative, however, so the SiggySanty assault there is yet another example that hate knowns no affiliation other than its own lunacy.

Larisa Alexandrovna said...

D'oh...Bret, I read your post and ERPs as one for some reason... sorry about that. I am rather sleepy still. Just pick and choose from that huge entry which statement applies to one or the other. ZZZZZZZZZZZZZz

also enjoying your site.

Bret said...

larisa wrote: "...can Bret start another thread..."

You got it.

erp said...

re: pajamas. I'm no expert, but I remember being very disappointed in the people involved. There was a big file on my hard drive, but it crashed and my backups are on CD's buried somewhere.

Wikipekdia's account provides some links.

All this happened when I was far more naive and thought the blogosphere would keep everyone honest (since everything would be known). Since then I wised up a bit and have returned to my original take on most things and that is, "Cherchez les buckaroos."

IMO - Their claim to be conservative is, like Mark Twain's death, greatly exaggerated. I avoid the site completely mostly because I loathe David Corn and any organization that has him on their editorial board can't IMO be taken seriously.