|
|
 |
ZT |
+ |
Saturday, February 14, 2004 at 2:29 AM We should all try to start a bogus call trend where "asshole the size of a mason jar" is replaced with "a penis the size of a football." See Cracked page 41. —ZT |
|
|
|
|
Pan Pan |
+ |
Monday, February 16, 2004 at 8:26 PM Mmmmm. Speaking of which... As long as you're reading about cracks, ZT, why don't you check out mine? I look forward to your deeply penetrating critique. —Pan Pan |
|
|
|
|
Thomas/Frope |
+ |
Tuesday, February 17, 2004 at 10:21 AM That's completely uncalled for. I don't know how many ppl I speak for when I say: If you aren't gonna contribute anything to the forum, even at least intelligent commentary, then leave. —Thomas/Frope |
|
|
|
|
Pan Pan |
+ |
Tuesday, February 17, 2004 at 1:37 PM Back off, Frope! I'm trying to hook up with ZT. —Pan Pan |
|
|
|
|
Logo Lou |
+ |
Tuesday, February 17, 2004 at 6:24 PM I'm still waiting for the paperback... which Drew mentioned should be coming along shortly... —Logo Lou |
|
|
|
|
Jacob Creutzfeldt |
+ |
Tuesday, February 17, 2004 at 9:33 PM Has anyone here read KK's 1/26/04 Amazon review of Cracked? WOW! It's the harshest criticism of Dear Old Doc that I've ever heard or read. I wonder if there's any truth to it or if it's just some competitor's dirty trick. Devastating. The guy says the incident took place nine years ago, long before Doc could possibly have been spoiled by his MTV fame. —Jacob Creutzfeldt |
|
|
|
|
Johnny |
+ |
Tuesday, February 17, 2004 at 9:42 PM I'm lazy, can you link that? —Johnny |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
steve |
+ |
Tuesday, February 17, 2004 at 10:14 PM I read KK's review -- he just sounds angry -- one of those typical pricks who thinks everything bad that happens in his life is someone else's fault. He could've gone to anyone else for help and I'm sure he would've still said 'the doctor was egotistical and didn't care about my problems'. By the way, I did some research and found a list of other people KK found to be self-serving jerks: 1) Ghandi (That dude was totally into himself.)
2) Mother Theresa (That chick was such a bitch.)
3) Norman Rockwell (That dude didn't know the first thing about kids.)
—steve |
|
|
|
|
NJC |
+ |
Wednesday, February 18, 2004 at 7:10 AM
Wow that guy has some energy! We don't know Drew and we weren't there to witness this guy's claims. We know him through the radio and this book. I will say that over the years I have been listening, he has shown a certain consistency and a genuine interest in the people he treats. I highly doubt that he's all of the things this man says he is.As we know, addiction causes certain behavioral changes in people (duh!). This man was addicted to prescription pain medication. These people have a skewed sense of reality when they are using and during recovery. In Cracked it was clear to me how the patients disliked the caretakers, unless they were giving them meds. They would always push the limits, see how far they could get. When they finally reached the limit, they were pissed, and acted out. Isn't it natural to have negative feelings toward the ones that are trying to help you? After all, it is the instinctual primitive core of the brain that is addicted, and instinctually, it's trying to stay alive, i.e. to keep using. KK: "The first of the so-called 12 steps paradoxically requires what no therapist would ever recommend in any other context in which psychic improvement is the goal: an acknowledgement of complete powerlessness. How can one who has declared him or herself powerless have power to overcome?" KK is not understanding this correctly. It's not just 'powerlessness', its powerlessness over your disease. Not powerlessness in life or as a person. It's another way of acknowledging that you need help. Not that it's time to throw in the towel, although this kind of thinking seems right in line with an addict. Finding excuses to not get (or stay) clean. KK: "It does not surprise me that in his pages he expresses ultimate mystification as to why people abuse substances and frequently return to the practice." Really? I think he has a pretty good handle on it. People abuse substances usually because of some kind of trauma experienced during development, which has altered their psyche. They continue because, as Drew says, their brains are 'wired' that way and the only way to re-wire them is with a lot of structured treatment. It sounds to me like KK does not want to get well, and is still using something. One final point (I know I'm going off, but I really feel I need to defend Drew on this one) KK: "I've stayed clean not because of Dr. Drew, but in spite of him. So much for the physician who puts broken lives together." Firstly, I don't believe him. He may not be on the pain meds, but he's on something.
Secondly, say he is clean. Regardless of his reasons or motivations, if he is clean, doesn't that disprove his whole argument? He's stayed clean not because of Drew but in spite of him? Isn't that because of Drew? Sounds contradictory to me. I think this guy is still very sick and his accusations of Drew are unfounded. What do you guys think?
—NJC |
|
|
|
|
Magnificent Bastard |
+ |
Wednesday, February 18, 2004 at 9:09 AM I think KK is a weak-minded eterna-junkie that can't accept personal failure. If one is to believe what he's achieved, then he can't but be bitter for what he's pissed away. Who better to point the finger at rather than yourself? Why, the people who treated you for _your_ failings! Seems classic. The kind that thinks only an addict can understand an addict- how droll. He states he's sober now, but I'd bet a month of monkey chow that KK's replaced his demons with something else, if he ever beat his addiction at all. The reason Dr. Drew thinks he's better than KK is obvious- he is.
—Magnificent Bastard |
|
|
|
|
Mahalo |
+ |
Wednesday, February 18, 2004 at 3:01 PM I wouldn't completely discount everything he said. It could've very well been that his experience with Drew wasn't too pleasant. The details of his intial exam don't register on my bogosity meter. However, his belief that those who treat addiction should have personal experience with it is just ridiculous. Years of experience in treating something is a benefit but I know I wouldn't want my brain surgeon to have had a tumor. —Mahalo |
|
|
|
|
ZT |
+ |
Thursday, February 19, 2004 at 3:11 PM I'm just glad to have a stalker... But, I think I know who he is, and hes not really a stalker, just bored. —ZT |
|
|
|
|
Pan Pan |
+ |
Thursday, February 19, 2004 at 3:45 PM Honeybuns, I'm no stalker. I could never fixate on one guy or get too possessive...it's just not my style. I'm only puttin' it out there and letting you know what's available. There's a fantastic wealth of sensuous delight in this big wide world and most people have closed themselves off to it. We can have us some fun...or not. Your loss, really. —Pan Pan |
|
|
|
|
Dean |
+ |
Thursday, February 19, 2004 at 8:53 PM Shut up, Pan Pan. No kidding that was a harsh review. I have mixed feelings about it. On the one hand, Drew doesn't come off on the radio as a distracted, testy guy with a huge ego. He's always the one ignoring Adam's advice to change the subject or hang up on the caller. He actually seems compassionate on the air. On the other hand, I've experienced that sort of perfunctory highhanded behavior from plenty of doctors, so that kind of thing rings true, in general. Plus, appearances can be deceiving. I once met a famous science writer whose work I admired. He always seemed, in print and in TV interviews, like a really nice guy. In person, though, he was an incredibly nasty little prick -- superarrogant, hostile, snide, and obnoxious, ordering complete strangers around like a drill sergeant. After that, I've always been skeptical of public personalities -- they don't always match up to the real person. If KK's story had happened not too long ago, it might be more credible. I sometimes think that Adam's crusty manner has rubbed off on Drew. I know if you spend a prolonged time in another person's company, often you pick up a few of their habits, especially if the other person has the stronger personality (as Adam clearly does). I can believe that Adam might be a bad influence on the weaker Drew. But this supposedly took place over nine years ago. That's not long enough for Adam to work his magic on the doctor. I haven't been listening to the show that long. Can anyone tell me what Drew was like on the air nine years ago? What KK says about having to be a junkie in order to treat one is complete bullshit. That sort of thing makes me suspect him, too. Maybe he thinks he's telling the truth but his perceptions are distorted by all the drugs he has taken. Who knows what the truth is? Also, I agree with some of the other Amazon reviewers that the co-author Todd Gold is a very sloppy writer who let the good doctor down. Drew deserves a better editor, one who doesn't chop things up and concentrate so much on Drew's sexy women patients. Drew delivers lots of great insights on the air (that is, whenever Adam lets him get a word in edgewise), but not enough of them ended up in the book. I got more insight from a couple of years of listening to Loveline than from reading Cracked. Kudos to SV and Kevin et al for this terrific forum. —Dean |
|
|
|
|
Art |
+ |
Friday, February 20, 2004 at 1:04 AM
Edited Friday, February 20, 2004 at 1:09 AM "It does not surprise me that in his pages he expresses ultimate mystification as to why people abuse substances and frequently return to the practice." -KK The ultimate "mystery" Drew alluded to was determining the reason some people are able to kick their addiction at some point when they could not before and when others have yet to be able to. He expressed how he had no explanation for it. I believe KK has mistaken the meaning and subsequently used the incorrect word. Mahalo- You may have considered this but I feel like it needs to be said: Using a "bogosity meter" with writing is different than live on the radio. Very healthy and intelligent people misrepresent themselves with inadequate writing and grammar on the internet all of the time out of fatigue, impatience, indifference, etc. It is far from the subconscious slip, unconscious tone or speech cadence in a live conversation that Adam and Drew refer to. It is quite possible to write well and appear normal, healthy and intelligent when you're not. Libraries are filled with award winning material authored by drug addicts, alcoholics, abused and dysfunctional people. In most, if not all, cases it would be impossible to tell unless they intentionally revealed it. —Art |
|
|
|
|
Dean |
+ |
Friday, February 20, 2004 at 1:38 AM Certainly KK missed the point, which is another reason why I find him suspect on the whole issue. That's very confused and sloppy thinking for a supposed summa cum laude, law review, deep thinker like him. Probably he is still on drugs or perhaps many years of drug abuse have taken their toll on his reasoning abilities. I can't answer for Mahalo, but it wasn't KK's tone or style or anything like that that had a ring of truth to it. It was the situation itself, as he described it. We already know, from his own admission, that KK is rather fucked up. We don't need to deduce it from his voice or his body language. We can take it as a given. But the kind of gruff, pompous treatment he says he received from Drew during his examination is something I myself have experienced many times from many doctors during my own medical problems (which were totally unrelated to drugs or alcohol). Like I said, this doesn't go one way or the other toward supporting or disproving KK's story about the incident, which is unverifiable and possibly based on faulty memories. It just means that the alleged incident doesn't sound so implausible to me, or apparently to Mahalo either. I continue to defend Drew and believe in him. But still.... —Dean |
|
|
|
|
Art |
+ |
Friday, February 20, 2004 at 2:38 AM Dean- There is no reason to be defensive. I, for one, was not expressing my comments to disagree or discredit. Do people really need to align perfectly with your point of view? Toss it all in the arena and let them decide. —Art |
|
|
|
|
Dean |
+ |
Friday, February 20, 2004 at 2:48 AM I'm not defensive at all, my good man. I just wanted to clarify the terms of the problem to be debated. None of us will ever really know whether KK's recollections are correct. All we can do is examine the likelihood of each version. So, what do you think -- what's the likelihood that Drew acted in such a way, given these meager facts? —Dean |
|
|
|
|
Pan Pan |
+ |
Friday, February 20, 2004 at 3:59 AM My, but you two sound like a pair of nattering old queens, constantly fussing about who borrowed whose rouge and making catty remarks about each other's faded looks. Gosh, was he or wasn't he a saucy boy, that Dr. Drew? Horrors, what if he had once been curt with a strung-out pretentious junkie? What a great subject for debate! I guess anything will serve as pretext for your passive-aggressive maunderings. Let's get back to important matters. Anal, oral, or intracrural...which is best and why? KY, petroleum jelly, and astroglide...what are the merits of each? ZT, where are you when we need you? —Pan Pan |
|
|
|
|
dotcomse |
+ |
Friday, February 20, 2004 at 4:04 AM Mahalo wrote:
"Years of experience in treating something is a benefit but I know I wouldn't want my brain surgeon to have had a tumor." I'd rather have a surgeon in remission than a nutty psychologist, but that's just me. :-) —dotcomse |
|
|
|
|
NJC |
+ |
Friday, February 20, 2004 at 6:40 AM Art, why is it that you seem to be the one to find a problem with benign comments, then accuse them of instigating? Let the chip off of your shoulder, it's not healthy. —NJC |
|
|
|
|
NJC |
+ |
Friday, February 20, 2004 at 7:14 AM And another thing, Pan Pan-Do you really need to reaffirm your ability to be a moron on every thread?
I'm sure I speak for everyone when I say that reading your posts has become tedious.
Everyone knows you now, you can stop acting out.
Also, you are obviously quite intelligent. I think you could have a lot to add to the forum, just lose the gay/silly stuff for a while. That way when you do try to be funny, it will have more novelty.
—NJC |
|
|
|
|
Art |
+ |
Friday, February 20, 2004 at 7:45 AM
Edited Friday, February 20, 2004 at 7:50 AM NJC- You are just taking advantage of a post to spin your way out of getting called on your shit earlier. I like that you are attempting to be communicative and diplomatic but don't think you are going to get away with slipping in BS. You are lecturing people here for ricockulously less offensive posting than you were reprimanded for my friend. Where did you get the horse? —Art |
|
|
|
|
NJC |
+ |
Friday, February 20, 2004 at 8:52 AM If any lecturing has been done, it has been by you.
As you said you reprimanded me before, which must make you in charge.
But let's take your own advice and "Toss it all in the arena and let them decide"
So all in favor of Art being supreme commander responsible for determining what is and is not offensive, and the intentions of which; whether insult, praise, or neutral: say I
This could be really big for you Art. Imagine all the reprimands and lectures you could bestow upon everyone! The horse? Must be the same place you picked up yours, but I better hide in the corner until this is all over. —NJC |
|
|
|
|
Art |
+ |
Friday, February 20, 2004 at 9:46 AM Just so it is clear to everyone, NJC shot off a smart ass remark out of nowhere during the beta test. When he was called on it he back-peddled claiming that because he went to college or had some flootie job we were supposed to grant him a red carpet to walk all over anyone whenever he felt like it. NJC like you were told then, if you cannot maintain a high standard of behavior all the entitled BS is moot. —Art |
|
|
|
|
Pan Pan |
+ |
Friday, February 20, 2004 at 12:11 PM Oooh goody, a cat fight! I just love it. Claws out, you saucy little felines. Go for the eyes! —Pan Pan |
|
|
|
|
NJC |
+ |
Friday, February 20, 2004 at 1:04 PM
Edited Friday, February 20, 2004 at 1:04 PM Art, Art, Art. Are you dilusional? Or just a liar?
Please don't misrepresent your own conclusions or speculations as factual. —NJC |
|
|
|
|
Art |
+ |
Friday, February 20, 2004 at 1:31 PM NJC- You and I know how you admitted your comments were sarcastic and inappropriate when we were just posting ideas we had about the beta forum. These were and still are my conclusions. They have been removed with the beta forum so we can only call each other liars, however, we both know the truth. (que the organ music) Stink eye to NJC
It really isn't this important. I'm lightening up at this moment. :-)
—Art |
|
|
|
|
NJC |
+ |
Friday, February 20, 2004 at 1:38 PM Alright, let's end it then.
I'm not just posting so I have the last word, you are free to respond.
Yes, some of my comments are sarcastic. I do this intentionally, and I believe I have a right to do so. If someone doesn't like it, they are free to say so.
Just don't put words in my mouth, and I won't yours. You seem to irk easily, so I will try not to direct any sarcastic comments in your direction.
Lightening up is good...we'll fire up a doobie and all will be well ;-)
(i can see it now: pan pan wanting to join us for a 'kiss-and-make-up session')
—NJC |
|
|
|
|
Sparkle Motion |
+ |
Saturday, February 21, 2004 at 11:24 PM I happen to be in a heightened state of consciousness right now and see everything so I can tell you that I understand clearly that Art is radiating his pain and is not to be trusted when he offers forgiveness. Life has hurt him and he lashes out. I don't know what to say or do at this point. Love is the answer and he is closed to it. Ego keeps him from accepting you. Ego is a hard walnut in your brain that is supposed to protect you but its sharp shell cuts into the the soft gray tissues and makes the soul bleed. Bleeding poisons all relationships. Cracked! Yes. Drew's book is a device for cracking the walnut of ego. Do you see how the universe all connects? So fucking beautiful! —Sparkle Motion |
|
|
|
|
Logo Lou |
+ |
Sunday, February 22, 2004 at 10:46 AM Sometimes I doubt your commitment to Sparkle Motion. —Logo Lou |
|