Thanks LH for chopping it up into bite size pieces, digestable by ADD patients, small children and the ocassional Chimp or Bonobo. Easy Chongo, Jane wants to twist again like she did last summer.


I have to admit that GUEST really astounds me. It is either some kind of a joke he (gender is my guess, forgive me if I'm wrong) is perpetuating or he really doesn't understand even the most basic rudiments of logic.

To dismiss an argument because of form is like a 5 year old throwing a fit because things aren't going his way. No fact, no evidence no logical argument. Nothing. Just "Blah, Blah, Blah".   This tells me that GUEST is either dihonest or uneducated and certainly immature.

You blast Oprah and Dr. Phil and then you give credence to Bill Moyers. My own opinion of Moyers is that he is about on the same level as Phil Donahue and believe me, that is NOT a compliment. That, however is a tangent that I don't want to pursue on this thread so I say again, that just my opinion. You, however cite him as some kind of authority without giving his credentials. Bye the bye, I happen to agree with the diease model of addiction.

Here is an alert from the halls of academia: Yes, anger is percieved in the brain---Along with ANYTHING that is percieved. Perception is a function of the human brain (and some rather smart chimps' brains too!). So that is a tautology and hence a fallacy. Q.E.D.

You claim,"... the current scientific research on the brain and addiction doesn't support the contention of most people in this thread, that anger is perceived in the brain as an addictive stimulus, like it shows with cocaine, nicotine, etc" (sic) but you cite no source. How are we to know this is true? So far its just an assertion by you. And the grammar alone muddies the water and makes it difficult to understand what the point is that you are trying to make.

You leave me with many unanswered questions. I don't really have but a vague notion of what your profession is or what your educational back ground is. And, lest you fault me for the same, I might point out that it was you who alluded to yourself as some sort of appeal-to-authority to enhance your opinion.

I'm not saying that you don't have a logical basis for what you believe, its just that you haven't really shared it with us!

re "catharsis": cleansing one's soul and clearing the air can be a helpful thing for all concerned. The Apostle Paul said "Be angry, and sin not." Eph 4:26. Anger that does not stay focused on the point of provocation can be very destructive even though the one who rages may feel a chatartic release. The frequency with which anger is expressed, it's effect on those around it and how wide ranging it is are all clues to the true nature of the angry person. It could be an addiction. It could be a form of mental illness. It could be an indicaator of a pysiological problem and only a true professional can make that determination (such as the onset of Alzheimer's). This is a very good thread and there have been some really great observations made. It is a good discussion. Flippancy and "anger" per se should not be a part of it.