Welcome to your own personal nightmare professional#

not, then it doesn't matter who is the source here, at least, until you get some experience with that member and have a feel for how much they can be trusted to not just spout but qualify and filter so as not to give out unlabelled untrustworthy contributions in the first place. Sorry, it's what you chose to put out there, you didn't have to.īut see, if you take the cue to find out for yourself, and what is true vs. You've shown a robust pattern or I would not have brought it up. After all, if as you say I give bad advice, then why would you consider me an appropriate source further? You would discount anything further from me, and that is a subtle little trick, and not meant to illuminate. If I try to 'convince' you, you will certainly just say I probably buttered the plate, so when you go off to do your own informing, you are deprived of simply discounting people further as your little tactic. So I suggest you actually assign yourself some homework, some actual homework and achieve some actually representative information before passing yourself off as some kind of expert and maligning others' contribution without any sort of effort on your part to contribute toward the greater knowledge. Then they can just simply put it out there as if they know what they are talking about. Anybody can go extract something they want from the internet, as one sided as they like, and just leave off looking for the actual truth. What's your actual experience with clonazepam? People here reflect what they have experienced. Now as to evidence, which you actually haven't supplied at all, I'm not here to convince you, you have to convince yourself. and implying that off the cuff without actual homework of any kind on your own part that you know something more than 10,000 practicing professionals with prescribing experience do.including me by the way.and under their control and supervision too I might add.instead of just discounting reflexively anything you can interpret as directed at you personally (which is about ego, and from your own introduction, not mine ).it's all there in the string and time stamps, you can't do research on a complex topic in five minutes before you just blast off an outburst response. Then I suggest you get to work learning sufficiently about clonazepam to learn the truth before you spout off about someone else's comment and also mis-characterizing it as advice, and bad advice at that, completely off the cuff as if it was personal, which is what you did. 'Consider the source.' What honest person could object to that? Tata. The message is not for you, but for them.

Can you? You haven't done so yet, and anyone can put up a single slide saying whatever you would like it to say.and then using careful sales tactical skills shift the emphasis by externalizing a rhetorical trick missile at the other party.Īgain, as I said, the vulnerable and people prone to take you too seriously out of their own need for help and their own desperation render themselves at risk to any predation you may practice.

Welcome to your own personal nightmare professional#

I can easily survive the spotlight, and for a lifetime of professional service, have happily done so. I believe that in reading recommendations, people should consider the source for their own protection, and try to then go on to find some education for themselves independent of what someone says here. At whose expense, probably the unsophisticated and impressionable, at their peril I suspect. You reason like a child, and transparently so, with a great deal of neediness.