One thing that makes this this stigma very evident is the “equation” of child-support put upon broken families. The Courts are quick on their application of such equation by mere “he said; she said” stances, yet slow on any updates from real evidence. I even have evidence that courts have relied on non-professional means for psychological analysis that no insurance company supports, which means the majority of doctors do not support. Professional psychologists stated they will not execute analysis based on Court motives alone. The professional psychologists and the insurance companies only support analysis based on conditions, occurrences, and “subjectives” from the Disorder Statistics Manual (DSM). The Courts, however, have ordered people for psychological analysis despite that standard. Are there psychologists that take your money and give the Court the ordered paperwork, still? Yes, unfortunately, they exist by degree alone, and they serve the Court for exploitative means, which nails down such “equation” their way despite real evidence that changes the factors.
There are limits on that paperwork, which pretty much sums up only as the “recommendation” of the psychologist. Notice the difference between the “recommendation” and the complete “diagnoses”. The psychologist that operates outside the DSM is not able to diagnose clients. Usually, these recommendation are the result of one day's worth of tests much like an extended version of job assessments, yet the psychologists charges thousands of dollars based for those test results. Under orders of the court, the client must pay. Unfortunately, the result only adds paperweight in the Court's case, which Judges use in their ignorance of law that protects both party's (and children's) rights. Some Judges tried enforcement of the recommendation, which doesn't legally stand, yet it still causes much distraction and further distress to the party “made” client of such non-professional psychologist. For example, the “medical marijuana recommendation” neither weighs in as any diagnoses nor prescription, as the more professional, agricultural, and religious word is “cannabis” (which further makes it obvious that usage of the “marijuana” slang is pejorative and predicate in law terms only, not science; and, such recommendation exploits non-prescriptive and non-religious uses). The only known benefit of such recommendations is that they help “the client” from being an “offender”, yet it does not protect anyone from further exploitation.
Internet addiction is not in the DSM, and many professional psychologists have already tried and proven over and over that it is not some mental illness or disorder; newly graduated and undergraduates still push and publish the issues maybe for their own personal achievement. I consider the internet is as much of any disorder and addiction as sex (said more famously in this comparison as “coitus”) is any disorder and addiction. Maybe the best “cure” for both is those AA like groups, “SA” (Sex Anonymous) or, likewise, “IA” (Internet Anonymous). When Judges, non-professional psychologists, court-staff, lawyers, “other parties”, and law officers use such “recommendation” against one party, then that pretty much amounts as “cyberbullying”. One thing not everybody is aware of is that “cyberbullying” doesn't only exist on the Internet, as the word refers more to the “human” interaction. Surely, the newly graduated and undergraduates are not fully aware, yet neither are said “interns”. When any condition causes distress, like cyberbullying does, than it most likely falls within the DSM. In California, I'm surprised that more Judges (staff, and others) don't get fined based on California's “anti-SLAPP” laws (and like) for use of such paperweight as something “official” or further exploitative.
How many times has Stephen King been brought into court and ordered no-contact with various people that have heard of his horror stories and got upset about them? There is conventional freedom of speech that many authors enjoyed that hasn't been recognized in those that author virtual reality. There is much patience and much work put into computer programs and virtual reality software. The Courts (and “other parties”) typically have ignored that systemic patience as weight in the court cases; “they” instead have made mountain out of molehills of the few to almost non-occurrences of challenges between the parties (hence “he said; she said”); maybe “they” do that inflammation of case material for other reasons besides cyberbullying. The programmers (or people most often behind the computer), however, are easy targets when book authors, like Stephen King, only get the protection that even programmers deserve.
Easy targets in Court is the dream of many lawyers since that means easier money for their job. Isn't money the real motive for Courts outside their job? It certainly seems so when the Courts are not for friendly courtship manners. Under such Courts and lawyers own gain, I think those lawyers (and Judges) have not realized how much they have set back our citizens and our State when they exploit such easy targets by such disassociation. The State-wide technological set-back shows the irresponsibility of the Courts and lawyers, and the bible makes that scapegoat scenario well-known, historically.
Is there any truth behind Internet addiction? In the use of the Internet as potential source of income (or knowledge), no. In the use of the Internet only for games, yes. Between that “no” and “yes” is the more correct truth of gambler's addiction (not internet addiction). Compare someone that stays behind the computer and plays games, instead of their more responsible duties, to someone that only gambles money, instead of more responsible duties; same? I think the bible mentions morals of moderation. Maybe we need more moderates in civil-law Courts instead of career lawyers, or maybe Court-Addiction is the truth behind Internet addiction, especially in civil Courts.
Right now I don't have access to the Internet. I only uploaded these latest blogs through Apple's public computers, as I pass by them while I exercise. I guess that would be some “miracle” (turn) in the non-professional view, as the people that called out “anti-social” are now more on the Internet (on-the-wire, always-on) than those like me. “Well actually,” the DSM does have entries that state “no known cause” (i.e. for unipolar) which reduces any such case-matters, said “recommendation” or “delusion” as the true reflection of the “bully” (or other party) rather than the individual professionally diagnosed (i.e. as unipolar).
Touché... (via la “web”...)
P.S. Please help organizations like StopStigmaSacramento.org
P.P.S. Much like the names hard drives, floppies, stiffies, and other political incorrect names for computer parts, the term “coitus” dumbfounded people in 1990s over the mere connection of the internet to federal agencies when exploited as some sex scandal with an intern. The Pentagon put the famous faces on “it”, and the former President took blame for such technological step, as his job. One stained dress became the only paperweight photo-evidence with its owner left assumed. Yes, only one “dress” (the dot-“com” boom) versus many careered congress-people that did not want public internet access in the affairs of federal business, so they impeached. Whereas, it would make more sense if they simply said it was controversial public access in secret business, yet that explanation wouldn't make the required “perfect tense” standards of historic governance; therefore, that's one reason why we appreciate real prose over typical essay.