#i got into the second round of the admission procedure on the university that's my number 1

[watercolor-hearts]

.

[dba-at-kmu-academy]

The aim of the Article

The article describes my experience with the KMU academy after seven years of DBA studies as from 20/12/2022. The KMU-Academy in Austria can be found at: https://www.kmuakademie.ac.at. The current state is that I have not got my PhD degree until now. The KMU-academy was not satisfied with my results and my PhD thesis. Actually, I am going through extra rounds after the first and a second defence which is called academic appeal. Now it is a case in OIA in the UK which represents an independent instance to clear the issue between me and the university in the UK and especially the KMU-academy located in Austria. In this blog, I would like to make my point of view clear because all the decision-makers made their points without asking the student who went through seven years of hard work trying to finish his PhD thesis. Hereby, besides a warning, I would like to represent my intrinsic as well extrinsic motivation so that in the future, doctoral candidates can have a guide with a study of this kind paid from private cash. In addition to describing the study procedure, I would also like to present my topic in the area of green software and sustainability. I have not obtained my PhD until now which has cost me a lot of time, money, and huge amount of nerves as well as health in the covid periods and before the covid waves. In this blog, my thesis as well as all phases of the study will be represented. The blog covers the phases: admission to the phase of the final exposé. Then it goes through the phases to the final stages and my PhD defence. Moreover, the blog tries to show what happens after the final stage and in the defence. To this end, documents from my own experiences during the study are presented, which could help to emphasize clearly how unfairly the KMU-Academy deals with facts. The KMU-Academy deals according to origin (place of birth) and work status in case of industrial positions of the doctoral students. I believe they do things in an unfair manner because they show a huge resistance to understand a student who tries to clear his point of view.  I would like to explain way there is this resistance to understand the goal and the aim of the thesis as well as to show examples which make the reason of these resistance clearer. It could maybe the reasons of the root to describe the behaviour of the KMU-Academy.

When the EU tries to make the environmental topics clear with the Greta effect from Sweden and REZO in Germany as a YouTuber, it means that a PhD student outside Europe is unable to solve such a problem and shall first be made familiar with the topic of being environmentally friendly and sustainable. I hope I will evoke something in the readers when they read these sentences. The EU wants to allow students of the age of 16 to do political elections. Inside the border of the EU, the place of birth and not the citizenship decides many things. Also, there are many covered activities which are said and not directly visible to human minds. One of the problems which should be clear is my PhD. What I faced during and after the defence should be clear so that the academic appeal is clear from my side.  

In summary, human beings like us born outside the EU should give more than what is needed. I did that in my PhD too. One of the most important reasons to write these words in a blog is to let the university in the UK know what the real problem is. Especially why there should be extra rounds, e.g., academic appeal and the contact to OIA where there was a hardworking period of seven years finishing a PhD. The difficulties to let people inside the EU follow the role and understand people’s backgrounds is pictured in my PhD. In other words, they want to listen and hear what they would like to. Somebody like me who doesn’t like the idea of having problems with Netflix and Amazon Prime because they are environmentally unfriendly will cause a huge trouble in the EU. In my point of view, the compromise to social effects and security shown in my PhD results is the aim which should be compromised when making decisions in case of such platforms. Only the compromise of the three factors safety, security and green software should be taken into account when somebody tries to do green environment using software. The huge benefits of such a streaming environment should not be stopped because they are harming the environment. These opinions will never fit in the minds of the EU because these streaming services are from outside the EU and especially from the USA. Exactly this point is the reason why I have to go through extra rounds to get my PhD degree. Maybe this is also the reason why the UK has left the EU

I would like to show some examples which could help to understand my point of view. The following examples are based on books I read during my life and especially during my PhD. Please see that as an analogy between the decision-maker during my defence and my PhD topic. I had so many troubles to let them understand my topic and the main goal of my PhD.

First Example:

I have lived in Germany since 1996. I came to Berlin from Jordan and was born in Iraq. After finishing my school and the last year in Jordan, I was depressed because my time in school in Jordan was really very hard, especially the last year before reaching the university level. I studied the German language which made me very happy. This also helped me out of my huge depressions after school. The Germans always watch us like we always have depression because of the golf war or Iraq-Iran war. Now, because of my love of the German language, I read many books. One of the books I read in my life was a German book, which deals with burnout and depression. In the mentioned book (see figure below), the writer speaks about how learning a new language can help you to overcome depression. In my point of view, learning the German language helped me a lot to get me out of the depression period. In the German life style, there is always a war behind a depression because of the place of birth. Now what is science and what is war? What do the Germans like? The same problem I am facing in my PhD. They speak about depression because of the war, and I am speaking about my hard school time in Jordan last year. They speak about huge problems we face to learn the German language and I do that with love because it helped me to overcome depression. These two points of view were there exactly in my defence of my PhD. The decision-maker spoke about a domain and green data during the defence, while my PhD topic deals with the life cycle and value chain during software development.

Second Example:

Another example based on a book I read during my PhD is “Statistics done wrong”. Please see the figure below. My point of view is clear. I had a significant result in my PhD by following Cronbach-Alpha and linear regression, which are part of the empirical methods and statistics. My survey was not really with a huge response, but the quality was more than good because I had filter questions and I randomized the survey question. I think that in this case like the book in my figure below, there is a huge scientific fight, especially when students use empirical methods. It is just like being more religious: In my religion, homosexuality is not allowed. What about science which goes wrong? Either there is a rule you should follow, and rules are changing because they are not religions. Or there should be defined steps which should be followed. Exactly here I want to do an appeal to the OIA and ask them what do they think after what happened to me and they have more than my case which has been reviewed. Is it fair to ask the questions the KMU-Academy asked me to change? Please refer in this case to the documents section in this blog and have a look. Your cases from the KMU-Academy should give you at least an impression that the people in my defence follow the rule to show that in science and life beside my PhD everything is clear and logical as per their way? But what if they follow the wrong way and I read the book below and I know what goes wrong? They should be clear and speak the truth to themselves and in front of the university. Does the KMU-Academy follow any rule to give people their PhD based on defined steps? I mean it was one of the reasons why I chose a UK system to get my PhD and I did not follow the German way!

Third example:

The most valuable book in green software and green can be found in the below figure. I have read this book twice. My perspective is to deal with the topic by doing risk management and dealing with green software by using state of the art in risk management. It should be compromised with safety and security. My view is a bird view from a practical point of view which considers the life cycle and the value chain of software development. Do the people in defence have 20-year experience in doing software development? Ok, the topic is not really a business administration topic in a classical way. It is non-traditional business information but part of the business administration. Are risk and cost not real factors in business administration? I don’t know why member in defence see these things as not satisfied factors?

Fourth example:

I don’t like the idea from the EU that American technology like Netflix and Amazon prime are harming the environment.  Green Data is not part of my bird view in doing my PhD. There is no sense to talk about everything in a way or others to satisfy the people. There is always a compromise with safety and security. The truth is: The EU is not really that good to do such a platform the USA deal with and run. The same point of view is visible in politics. The Arab Muslims and refugees are the real problem in the EU. These topics are the media in the EU. I have a different point of view because of my hard-working life. Now, I paid almost 40 000 Euro to finish my PhD because I am not a Muslim or because my root is Iraq! There should be a fair play and scale to follow the playing rules while having a different opinion. My problem is that the scale has been lost in different areas. Now to pay the fees to KMU- Academy is something clear before I started the PhD, which has been already made. What about letting kids in the EU do political elections as from 16 years? What about my origin or place of birth if I deal with environment topics and software? Is this topic for the EU or UK or I should be from India because it has something to do with software? I should go through this or other way because refugees and Muslims are changing the majority of the society. I have the opinion that the media is one reason to make the people in my defence dealing with my results in somehow like: Our kids in EU are doing more than you. The figure below is a symbol that the green political party in the EU became stronger only because the earth resources from Arab countries should be cheaper. The EU deals with the environment as a factor which should be used to put pressure on others. Their kids are YouTube stars doing publicity. I am doing my PhD, not more, not less. If it goes in extra rounds to get my right, then I should explain my point of view.

Fifth example:

My PhD and the research questions have similarities with the question in the figure below. If you understand that job fluctuation is a decision after reaching the break-even point because of economic or social reasons, then you will almost be able to understand my bird view and my point of view in my thesis work. One decides to leave an office for more reasons like if the company I am working in harms the environment by selling their products. My results in my thesis were to measure this break-even point where I had significant results. It means that a company X will save money if they don’t let the people leave the company. The deal or no deal in my PhD which has been made was more or less because there was no real understanding of the main goal of thesis. Now if somebody is reading my arguments and he still says that he doesn’t understand, then I really don’t know what to do to show the truth and make things clear. In my opinion, there was a huge resistance by my defence understanding my way or the main goal of my thesis because of the Iceberg model. They are not aware of what I did. The thesis is written in a clear and easy way to understand. This reason has to do with the media and the root or my origin or maybe my face.

I have more examples. I think my point of view is clear now. I really don’t like the idea of getting my PhD anymore. After what happened and especially during Covid, I feel there is no need to have these troubles anymore. It is just that last cry to get my hard work confirmed. A title is finally a real success. If there is a PhD degree after all these rounds and my examples, then it will be a sustainable success for me. Because of these rounds, I have faced a lot of problems. In the following section, you will see my changes and arguments after the first revision letter. The second revision is almost the same because they did not get the main idea of my topic while not following a rule to do assessment of a PhD student.

[unabashedlystupendousbeliever]

ELECTROSHOCK: A CHRONOLOGY OF PSYCHIATRIC ABUSE Leonard Roy Frank, editor 26 June 2005

1938 — Italian psychiatrists Ugo Cerletti and Lucino Bini introduced electroconvulsive treatment (ECT, EST, electric shock treatment, shock treatment, electroshock, and convulsive therapy) at the University of Rome in April 1938. The subject of the first experiment with the procedure was a vagrant identified only as “S. E.” He had been picked up by the police who had found him wandering about in a railway station. The Police Commissioner of Rome turned him over to Cerletti’s institute, where “a diagnosis of schizophrenic syndrome was made based on his passive behavior, incoherence, low affective reserves, hallucinations, deliriant ideas of being influenced, neologisms.” The first attempt to induce a convulsion with electricity on S. E. failed because insufficient current was applied. According to Cerletti, “It was proposed that we should allow the patient to have some rest and repeat the experiment the next day. All at once, the patient, who evidently had been following the conversation, said clearly and solemnly, without his usual gibberish: ‘Not another one! It’s deadly!’” Despite the subject’s demand, Cerletti administered a second and stronger shock, this time triggering the seizure. Thus, the first ECT was carried out against the subject’s will, without his or anyone else’s permission. Earlier in Rome, Cerletti had experimented with pigs and later wrote, “Having obtained authorization for experimenting from the director of the slaughterhouse, Professor Torti, I carried out tests, not only subjecting the pigs to the current for ever-increasing periods of time, but also applying the current in various ways across the head, across the neck, and across the chest.” Referring to the first use of electroshock on a human being, Cerletti wrote, “When I saw the patient’s reaction, I thought to myself: This ought to be abolished” [Editor’s summary based on Frank J. Ayd Jr., “Guest Editorial: Ugo Cerletti (1877-1963),” Psychosomatics, November-December 1963 and Cerletti, “Old and New Information About Electroshock,” American Journal of Psychiatry, August 1950].

1940 — These sundry procedures [i.e., lobotomy and several forms of shock treatment] produce “beneficial” results by reducing the patient’s capacity for being human. The philosophy is something to the effect that it is better to be a contented imbecile than a schizophrenic. HARRY STACK SULLIVAN (U.S. psychiatrist), referring to lobotomy and shock treatment (in his phrase psychiatry’s “decortication treatments”), “Conceptions of Modern Psychiatry,” Psychiatry, February 1940

1942 — Case 1. M.C. Philadelphia State Hospital. Reg. No. 51103. Paranoid dementia praecox in a woman of 45. Electrical convulsion treatments, 62 [in 16 of which no convulsion was produced], over a period of 5½ months. Numerous punctate hemorrhages in the cerebral cortex, medulla, cerebellum and basal ganglia. Areas of perivascular edema and necrosis....Comment. The foregoing case is the first reported instance, so far as we know, of hemorrhages in the brain attributable to electrical convulsion treatment.... BERNARD J. ALPERS and JOSEPH HUGHES (U.S. physicians), “The Brain Changes in Electrically Induced Convulsions in the Human,” Journal of Neuropathology and Experimental Neurology, April 1942

1942 — The disturbance in memory [caused by ECT] is probably an integral part of the recovery process. I think it may be true that these people have for the time being at any rate more intelligence than they can handle and that the reduction of intelligence is an important factor in the curative process.

ABRAHAM MYERSON (U.S. psychiatrist), in discussion of Franklin G. Ebaugh et al., “Fatalities Following Electric Convulsive Therapy: A Report of 2 Cases with Autopsy Findings,” Transactions of the American Neurological Association, June 1942 

1948 — We started by inducing two to four grand mal convulsions daily until the desired degree of regression was reached.... We considered a patient had regressed sufficiently when he wet and soiled, or acted and talked like a child of four....

Sometimes the confusion passes rapidly and patients act as if they had awakened from dreaming; their minds seem like clean slates upon which we can write.

CYRIL J. C. KENNEDY and DAVID ANCHEL (U.S. psychiatrists), “Regressive Electric-Shock in Schizophrenics Refractory to Other Shock Therapies.” Psychiatric Quarterly, vol. 22, p. 317-320,

1949 — [While filming Annie Get Your Gun in 1949, Judy Garland] began to arrive at the studio late or not at all, often staying home, unable to rise from her bed. Her weight dropped to 90 pounds, and her hair began to fall out, a side effect, most likely, of her profligate use of amphetamines. In an effort to lift her out of her depression, a new doctor, Fred Pobirs, persuaded her to undergo a series of six electroshock treatments. GERALD CLARKE (U.S. writer), Get Happy: The Life of Judy Garland, 2000. Garland returned to the set after undergoing ECT, but, as she recalled later, “I couldn’t learn anything. I couldn’t retain anything; I was just up there making strange noises. Here I was in the middle of a million-dollar property, with a million-dollar wardrobe, with a million eyes on me, and I was in a complete daze. I knew it, and everyone around me knew it.” The studio soon suspended her from the film.

1951 — Shock therapy never builds. It only destroys, and its work of destruction is beyond control. It is not new. The only new thing about it is the method of delivering the shock. A hundred and fifty years ago a well-recognized shock-treatment method was to flog or frighten the patient, and in some instances the results were excellent. Now we “do it electrically,” and we get about the same percentage of good results, but with some breaking of bones, and memory losses which frightening and flogging never produced.

Memory losses in modern shock therapy may be passed off as infrequent, limited, and temporary, but they are really frequent, they cannot be limited, and they are usually permanent. I have heard doctors laugh about them as they laugh about other things in mental patients, but the losses are serious to the patients themselves. And along with such losses go changes in general intelligence and personality, but when these changes are too obvious to be overlooked they are ascribed to the mental illness with no mention at all of the treatment. JOHN MAURICE GRIMES (U.S psychiatrist), When Minds Go Wrong, 2nd ed., 20, 1954 (1951)

1956 — One of us (J. A. E.) has collected these statements over a period of eight years in Britain and the United States. Most of them have been heard on many occasions. Colleagues who have seen the list of comments have confirmed our findings that many affect-laden colloquialisms are regularly used by shock therapists in referring to their therapy.... l. “Let’s give him the works.” 2. “Hit him with all we’ve got.” 3. “Why don’t you throw the book at him?” 4. “Knock him out with EST [i.e., ECT].” 5. “Let’s see if a few shocks will knock him out of it.” 6. “Why don’t you put him on the assembly line?” 7. “If he would not get better with one course, give him a double-sized course now.” 8. “The patient was noisy and resistive so I put him on intensive EST three times a day.” 9. One shock therapist told the husband of a woman who was about to be shocked that it would prove beneficial to her by virtue of its effect as “a mental spanking.” 10. “I’m going to gas him.” 11. “Why don’t you give him the gas?” 12. “I spend my entire mornings looking after the insulin therapy patients.” 13. “I take my insulin therapy patients to the doors of death, and when they are knocking on the doors, I snatch them back.” 14. “She’s too nice a patient for us to give her EST.” DAVID WILFRED ABSE and JOHN A. EWING (British-born U.S. psychiatrists), “Transference and Countertransference in Somatic Therapies,” Journal of Nervous and Mental Diseases, January 1956 

1961 — Every morning I woke in dread, waiting for the day nurse to go on her rounds and announce from the list of names in her hand whether or not I was for shock treatment, the new and fashionable means of quieting people and of making them realize that orders are to be obeyed and floors are to be polished without anyone protesting and faces are made to be fixed into smiles and weeping is a crime.

JANET FRAME (New Zealand electroshock survivor and writer), Faces in the Water, 1.1, 1961

1961 — Suddenly the inevitable cry or scream sounds from behind the closed doors which after a few minutes swing open and Molly or Goldie or Mrs. Gregg, convulsed and snorting, is wheeled out. I close my eyes tight as the bed passes me, yet I cannot escape seeing it, or the other beds where people are lying, perhaps heavily asleep, or whimperingly awake, their faces flushed, their eyes bloodshot. I can hear someone moaning and weeping; it is someone who has woken up in the wrong time and place, for I know that the treatment snatches these things from you, leaves you alone and blind in a nothingness of being, and you try to fumble your way like a newborn animal to the flowing of first comforts; then you wake, small and frightened, and tears keep falling in a grief that you cannot name. JANET FRAME, Faces in the Water, 1.1, 1961

JANET FRAME, Faces in the Water, 2.1, 1961

1961 — I tried to forget my still-growing disquiet and dread and the haunting smell of the other ward, as I became to all appearances one of the gentle contented patients of Ward Seven, that the E.S.T. which happened three times a week, and the succession of screams heard as the machine advanced along the corridor, were a nightmare that one suffered for one’s own “good.” “For your own good” is a persuasive argument that will eventually make man agree to his own destruction. JANET FRAME, Faces in the Water, 2.1, 1961

1963 — The name on my admission chart at the Allan Memorial reads “Linda Helen Cowan (nee Macdonald).” It was March 28, 1963. A young wife and mother, I was to become one of the last victims of Dr. Ewen Cameron’s experiments on the human brain. I am 49 years old today. I accept my age only because my birth certificate validates the time, day, and the place of my birth. In reality, my reality, I am 23. I have no memory of existing prior to October 1963, and the recollections I do have of events of the following years until 1966 are fuzzy and few.... Dr. Cameron’s “brainwashing” experiments wiped my brain clean of every experience I had ever known.... My parents were introduced to me that winter of 1963/64. Of course, I did not know them. The children came back from wherever they had been living. I had no idea who they were, and I certainly had no sense of what a ‘mother’ was. They were all “older” than I; the oldest could read and write—their mother could not.... A woman robbed of her life. I had decided to share my life with you. If sharing my personal experience can help to educate the public so that such abusive experimentation will not, for any reason, with or without consent, be performed on human beings ever again, indeed something positive will have emerged from a living hell. LINDA MACDONALD (Canadian electroshock survivor), “Breakthrough” (1986), in Bonnie Burstow and Don Weitz, eds., Shrink Resistant: The Struggle Against Psychiatry in Canada, 1988

1964 — A person who does not have a memory is not able to perform as an actress. I’m still able to do things—that is, I’m able to do them in a very limited way as a kind of hobby. I have to work terribly hard to do it. Recently, I did a public theater appearance. I had to drive around with the tape on saying the lines over and over and over and over. Previously, I’d just do a couple of readings... and that would be enough. I don’t have this quick ability anymore. I don’t like to appeal to emotionalism, but I’m furious about the whole thing. I mean my life changed radically.... Since the shock treatment [in 1964] I’m missing between eight and fifteen years of memory and skills, and this includes most of my education. I was a trained classical pianist.... Well, the piano’s in my house, but I mean it’s mostly just a sentimental symbol. It just sits there. I don’t have that kind of ability any longer.... I lost people by losing those eight to fifteen years. People come up to me and they speak to me and they know me and they tell me about things that we’ve done. I don’t know who they are. I don’t know what they’re talking about although obviously I have been friendly with them.... [The shock treatment] diminished me.... I am certainly nothing like I was, and my life is nothing like it would have been. CONNIE NEIL (Canadian electroshock survivor), testifying at electroshock hearings conducted by Toronto’s Board of Health, January 1984, in Phoenix Rising (Electroshock Supplement), April 1984

1974 — The day after I was discharged, my hospital roommate, Ruth, escaped and jumped from the University of Texas tower. She died on impact—a heap of broken bones to go with her broken spirit. Only three days previous she had told me that she was tired of walking around like a zombie. She blamed this zombiness on a series of shock treatments she had recently received. JIMMIE BREWER (U.S. psychiatric survivor), in “NAPA News,” Madness Network News, June 1974

1974 — He [the old personality] was dead. Destroyed by order of the court, enforced by the transmission of high-voltage alternating current through the lobes of his brain. Approximately 800 mills of amperage at durations of 0.5 to 1.5 seconds had been applied on twenty-eight consecutive occasions, in a process known technologically as “Annihilation ECS” [i.e., ECT]. A whole personality had been liquidated without a trace in a technologically faultless act that has defined our relationship ever since. I have never met him. Never will. ROBERT M. PIRSIG (U.S. electroshock survivor and writer), Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, 7, 1974

1974 — Interviewer: You say you’d rather have a lobotomy than electroconvulsive shock? Do you have some pretty solid ideas about what electroconvulsive shock does? Pribram: No—I just know what the brain looks like after a series of shocks—and it’s not very pleasant to look at. KARL PRIBRAM (U.S. psychologist and neurosurgeon), “From Lobotomy to Physics to Freud... an Interview with Karl Pribram,” APA Monitor (American Psychological Association), September-October 1974

1974 — I came home from the office after that first day back feeling panicky. I didn’t know where to turn. I didn’t know what to do. I was terrified. I’ve never been a crying person, but all my beloved knowledge, everything I had learned in my field during twenty years or more, was gone. I’d lost everything that professionals take for granted. I’d lost my experience, my knowing. But it was worse than that. I felt that I’d lost my self. I fell on the bed and cried and cried and cried. MARILYN RICE (U.S. electroshock survivor and government official), describing her return to work following a series of 8 ECTs in the early 1970s, in Berton Roueché, “As Empty as Eve,” New Yorker, 9 September 1974. Rice was cited as Natalie Parker, a pseudonym, in the article.

1977 — [Electrically induced seizures] are an iatrogenic injury to the brain. Even if they could be proved to relieve mental anguish more often than they cause it, and even if some patients ask for ECT and are pleased with its effects, the question of whether to pursue happiness through brain damage cannot be decided scientifically. This is a value judgment, which, in the interest of freedom and dignity, must be left to the fully informed individual. JOHN FRIEDBERG (U.S. neurologist), “ECT as a Neurologic Injury,” Psychiatric Opinion, 14:18, 1977

1977-1978 — Between February 1977 and October 1978 Freeman and Kendell interviewed 166 patients who had ECT during either 1971 or 1976 in Edinburgh. Of this group, 64% reported “memory impairment” (25% “thought symptom severe,” 39% “thought symptom mild”). Twenty-eight percent agreed with the statement that “ECT causes permanent changes to memory.” Squire reported findings of his three-year follow-up study of 35 people who had received an average of 11 bilateral ECTs. Of the 31 people available for interview, 18 (58%) answered “no” to the question, “Do you think your memory now is as good as it is for most people your age?” All but one of the 18 attributed their memory difficulties to ECT. LEONARD ROY FRANK (U.S. electroshock survivor and editor), “Electroshock: Death, Brain Damage, Memory Loss, and Brainwashing,” Journal of Mind and Behavior, Summer-Autumn 1990. The article by psychiatrists C. P. L. Freeman and R. E. Kendell was published under the title of “ECT: I. Patients’ Experiences and Attitudes” in the British Journal of Psychiatry, July 1980; psychologist Larry Squire’s study was summarized in his letter to American Journal of Psychiatry, September 1982

1980 — One advantage in the use of this treatment as far as hospital staff is concerned is that the effect of successive shock treatments makes the patient more and more confused, regressed, compliant, and—above all—forgetful, until the patient no longer remembers that he is fighting his hospitalization and the use of electroshock treatment. If there is any question whether the patient meets the criteria for commitment, several shocks later all doubts will have disappeared as the patient becomes increasingly more disoriented and confused. JONAS ROBITSCHER (U.S. psychiatrist), The Powers of Psychiatry, 16, 1980

1984 — It’s a matter of losing skills, losing learning that I had accumulated.... My entire college education has been completely wiped out and besides that all the reading and learning that I did on my own in the past three years.... I guess the doctors would consider [that ECT] had beneficial effects because it has “cured my depression,” but it’s cured my depression by ruining my life, by taking away everything that made it worth having in the first place.... It’s really important to point out what [ECT] does to the emotions. It’s like I exist in this kind of nowhere world right now. I don’t feel depressed. On the other hand I don’t feel happy. I just kind of feel nothing at all. LINDA ANDRE (U.S. electroshock survivor, director of the Committee for Truth in Psychiatry, and writer), after undergoing 15 ECTs at New York’s Payne Whitney Psychiatric Clinic in 1984 at the age of 24, radio interview, WBAI (New York), 1985

1984 — My behavior [following ECT in 1984] was greatly changed; in a brain-damaged stupor, I smiled, cooperated, agreed that I had been a very sick girl and thanked the doctor for curing me. I was released from the hospital like a child just born. I knew where I lived, but I didn’t recognize the person I lived with. I didn’t know where I had gotten the unfamiliar clothes in the closet. I didn’t know if I had any money or where it was. I didn’t know the people calling me on the phone.... Very, very gradually—I realized that three years of my life were missing. Four years after shock, they are still missing. LINDA ANDRE, “The Politics of Experience,” testimony before the Quality of Care Conference, Albany (New York), 13 May 1988, in Leonard Roy Frank, “Electroshock: Death, Brain Damage, Memory Loss, and Brainwashing,” Journal of Mind and Behavior, Summer-Autumn 1990

1985 — I told my shrink I didn’t want to be cured of being a lesbian. He said that just proved how sick I was. He said I needed shock treatment. SHEILA GILHOOLY (Canadian electroshock survivor and writer), in Persimmon Blackbridge and Gilhooly, “Still Sane,” Still Sane, 1985

1989 — We were unable to confirm earlier reports that treatment with ECT or adequate amounts of antidepressants are associated with lower mortality in depressed persons. In fact, neither general (all cause) mortality rates nor suicide rates varied significantly among treatment groups. DONALD W. BLACK, GEORGE WINOKUR (U.S. psychiatrists) et al., among conclusions in “Does Treatment Influence Mortality in Depressives? A Follow-up of 1076 Patients with Major Affective Disorders,” Annals of Clinical Psychiatry, September 1989. This follow-up study conducted at the University of Iowa Psychiatric Hospital in Iowa City divided 1076 inpatients admitted between 1970 and 1981 into four “treatment groups”: ECT (372 patients), adequate antidepressants (180), inadequate antidepressants (317), and neither ECT nor antidepressants (207).

1989 — [Gary] Aden was a founder and first President of the International Psychiatric Association for the Advancement of Electrotherapy (now the Association for Convulsive Therapy)... A newspaper account dated September 27, 1989, in the San Diego Union [reported]: “Dr. Gary Carl Aden, 53, of La Jolla gave up his medical license effective September 8 after allegations that he had sex with patients, beat them and branded two of the women with heated metal devices, including an iron that bore his initials.” In another story a patient describes Aden as drugging her with a hypodermic before sexually abusing her and beating her with a riding crop [San Diego Union, 1 January 1989]. Aden was permitted to forfeit his license without admitting guilt. He was not subjected to being psychiatrically diagnosed or treated involuntarily, nor was he criminally charged. PETER R. BREGGIN, Toxic Psychiatry, 9, 1991. Aden was Medical Director of the San Diego Neuropsychiatric Clinic for Human Relations Center in addition to being the plaintiff in Aden v. Younger, which challenged the 1976 law regulating the use of ECT and psychosurgery in California.

1992 — There is an extensive literature on brain damage from ECT as demonstrated in large animal studies, human autopsy studies, brain wave studies, and an occasional CT scan study. Animal and human autopsy studies show that shock routinely causes widespread pinpoint hemorrhages and scattered cell death. PETER R. BREGGIN, “The Return of ECT,” Readings (a publication of the American Orthopsychiatric Association), March 1992. Glen Peterson, a major ECT proponent and a former Executive Director of the International Psychiatric Association for the Advancement of Electrotherapy, sees the brain-damage issue differently: “The possibility of brain damage is absolutely refuted by brain scans, by neuropsychological studies, by autopsies, by animal studies, and by analysis of cerebrospinal fluid and blood chemicals that leak from damaged cells that aren’t detected in ECT patients.” (in Russ Rymer, “Electroshock,” Hippocrates, March-April 1989)

1993 — ECT may effectively silence people about their problems, and even convince some people that they are cured by numbing their faculties and destroying their memories. It may fulfill a socially-valued function in reinforcing social norms and returning people to unhappy or abusive situations, or to isolation and poverty without any expenditure on better services or community development. It is easier to numb people and induce forgetfulness than to try to eradicate poverty, provide worthwhile jobs and deal with people’s demands to be listened to, understood, loved and valued as part of the community. JAN WALLCRAFT (British electroshock survivor and writer), “ECT: Effective, But for Whom?” OPENMIND (British journal), April-May 1993

1994 — One may see in the faces of patients condemned to electroconvulsive therapy an expectation that they are scheduled for torture; the casual order—”No breakfast for you, you’re getting shock this morning”—can produce hysteria and panic. Even were it beneficial, which it is not, the patient’s conviction that he or she is subjected to torture makes it such. As arms and legs are held down and the body thrashes under the force of the electrical charge, one is observing torture under the guise of “treatment.” KATE MILLETT (U.S. psychiatric survivor and writer), The Politics of Cruelty: An Essay on the Literature of Political Imprisonment, pp. 89-90, 1994

1995 — Psychiatrists don’t make much money, and by practicing ECT they can bring their income almost up to the level of the family practitioner or internist. CONRAD SWARTZ (U.S. psychiatrist), in Dennis Cauchon, “Shock Therapy,” USA Today, 6 December 1995. Swartz is co-owner of Somatics, Inc., manufacturer of the Thymatron ECT device. Cauchon reported that, according to the American Medical Association, psychiatrists earned an average of $131,300 in 1993.

1996 — Among the small fraternity of electroshock experts, psychiatrist Richard Abrams is widely regarded as one of the most prominent. Abrams, 59, who retired recently as a professor at the University of Health Sciences/Chicago Medical School, is the author of psychiatry’s standard textbook on ECT. He is a member of the editorial board of several psychiatric journals. The American Psychiatric Association’s 1990 task force report on ECT is studded with references to more than 60 articles he has authored.... Yet Abrams’s 340-page textbook [Electroconvulsive Therapy, 2nd ed., 1992] never mentions his financial interest in Somatics, the company he [co-]founded in 1983.... Financial ties between device manufacturers, drug companies and biotech firms “are a growing reality of health care and a growing problem,” said Arthur L. Caplan, director of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine. For doctors “the questions that such financial conflicts of interest generate are, do patients get adequate full disclosure of options or are you skewing how you present the facts because you have a financial stake in the treatment and you personally profit from it every time it’s used?” Caplan asked. “It’s especially disturbing with ECT because it’s so controversial” and public mistrust of the treatment is so great, he added.... Abrams declined to say how much he has earned from Somatics. Approximately 1,250 machines, priced at nearly $10,000, have been sold to hospitals worldwide, he said. Between 150 and 200 machines are sold annually, according to Abrams. Somatics also sells reusable mouthguards for $29, which are designed to minimize the risk of chipped teeth or a lacerated tongue. SANDRA G. BOODMAN, “Shock Therapy: It’s Back,” Washington Post (Health, p. 18), 24 September 1996. Responding to the same failure-to-disclose issue raised in Dennis Cauchon’s two-part series on ECT (“Shock Therapy,” USA Today, 6-7 December 1995), Abrams concluded his letter to the editor (11 December 1995) as follows: “If there is any shame attached to ECT, it is that it has too often been given by inexperienced and poorly trained doctors with unsafe and obsolete equipment. A copy of my book, and one of my ECT devices, placed in each hospital offering this treatment should go along way toward correcting this problem.” Abrams, in the 3rd edition of Electroconvulsive Therapy (1997), disclosed that he is “President of Somatics, Inc., a firm that manufactures and distributes the Thymatron ECT device” not in the book’s text but on the back flap of the book jacket.

1996 — One moment that I remember clearly from my hospital stay for ECT in 1996 is the horror I felt when after one of my treatments I couldn’t remember how old my children were. Not only did the ECT not work for me, but my suffering was compounded when I realized that approximately 2 years of my life prior to the ECT had been erased. My retention of new information is also severely impaired. If anyone had told me that this could happen, even a remote chance, I never would have consented to ECT. I would much rather have lost a limb or 2 than to have lost my memory — my “self.” JACKIE MISHRA (U.S. electroshock survivor), in Loren R. Mosher and David Cohen, “The Ethics of Electroconvulsive Therapy (ECT),” Virtual Mentor (Ethics Journal of the American Medical Association), October 2003

2000 — My long-term memory deficits far exceed anything my doctors anticipated, I was advised about, or that are validated by research. To the contrary, either I am one in a thousand, a complete anomaly, to be able to document memory loss still remaining after three years and extending as far back as incidences eight to nine years ago, or the profession in general, after all these years of treatment with ECT, has still failed to identify and come to grips with the true potential risks. While the more distant incidents may be random events, they are hardly insignificant ones: hosting and driving Mother Teresa for a full-day visit to Los Angeles in 1989; the dinner reception for my National Jefferson Award in Washington, D.C. in 1990, where I met and sat beside my co-honoree, General Colin Powell; my brother’s wedding in 1991—the list goes on, and keeps growing as people bring up references to the past in casual conversations. Human memory seems to me to be one of the most precious aspects of our personality, since our memories are so critical to who we are and how we see ourselves and others. The memories of our past give us an understanding of where we fit in the world. I have experienced more than a “cognitive deficit.” I have lost a part of myself. ANNE B. DONAHUE (U.S. electroshock survivor and attorney), referring to the memory loss she experienced following two ECT series in 1995 and 1996, 33 treatments in all, which she reports saved her life, “Electroconvulsive Therapy and Memory Loss: A Personal Journey,” Journal of ECT (“Official Journal of the Association for Convulsive Therapy”), July 2000

[esonetwork]

Timestamp #147: The Ultimate Foe

New Post has been published on https://esopodcast.com/timestamp-147-the-ultimate-foe/

Timestamp #147: The Ultimate Foe

Doctor Who: The Ultimate Foe The Trial of a Time Lord, Parts XIII-XIV (2 episodes, s23e13-e14, 1986)

  It’s time for closing statements.

Picking up at the Doctor’s inadvertent admission of genocide, the Doctor charges that the Matrix has been tampered with so the Inquisitor calls upon the Keeper of the Matrix to testify. The Keeper denies the possibility on grounds that the Key of Rassilon is required to enter the database, and only senior Time Lords have access to the keys. Neither the Valeyard nor the Inquisitor is swayed.

Something sounded fishy here, so I waded back into the archives. The Invasion of Time calls out the Great Key of Rassilon, the literal key to ultimate Time Lord knowledge. So are all of these senior Time Lords holding Lesser Keys of Rassilon, and if so, what is the difference if they all lead to the same Matrix, arguably the source of all Time Lord knowledge?

Outside the station, two pods arrive and travel down the fancy corridor of light. They open to reveal Sabalom Glitz and Mel – though neither knows how they arrived at the station – and they barge into the courtroom to offer a defense for the Doctor. On cue, their mysterious benefactor is revealed as the Master, communicating to them from the depths of the Matrix.

First, this whole arc just got a lot more deus ex machina.

Second, it turns out that a Key of Rassilon can be duplicated. Looking back on The Invasion of Time and the (admittedly assumed) purpose of the Great Key the “lesser” keys, this really makes me wonder about the Artifacts of Rassilon. Possession of the Sash, the Key, and the Rod could lead to absolute power and a Time Lord dictatorship, and if the keys are so easily duplicated then why hasn’t someone attempted a coup with a Gallifreyan 3-D printer?

The Time Lords in attendance do not recognize the Master (which is surprising given how often the High Council has interacted with the Master and/or sent the Doctor to stop him), but the Master seems to have a deep interest in the Valeyard and a strong desire to see him lose. The Inquisitor allows Glitz to testify and the rogue reveals that the mysterious box he was searching for contained secrets of the Time Lords. The sleepers – the inhabitants of Ravalox, then known as Earth – somehow gained access to the Matrix and were siphoning secrets into the box for later use, and the Gallifreyan High Council drew Earth out of orbit, initiated the fireball, and renamed the planet to protect the information.

Yikes. The Doctor’s enemy in this story is own people?

The Master reveals that the Valeyard was charged to tamper with the trial evidence in exchange for the rest of the Doctor’s regenerations. You see, the Valeyard is the Doctor… or rather the amalgamation of the Doctor’s darker impulses from somewhere between his twelfth and final incarnations.

The Doctor’s real enemy is himself.

The Inquisitor agrees that the trial must consider this new evidence, and the Valeyard flees into the Matrix. The Doctor and Glitz pursue him, landing in a warped recreation of Victorian-era London. The Doctor is attacked by a rain barrel, but he is saved by Glitz. The rouge hands the Time Lord a note from the Master pointing them toward a place called The Fantasy Factory. As they approach, Glitz takes a harpoon to the chest.

The Matrix is a place where logic has no hold, and we’re back to The Deadly Assassin.

In the courtroom, the Master testifies to the court that everything they saw was true with minor adjustments to cast doubt on the Doctor. He also reveals that Peri’s fate in Mindwarp was a lie. She is serving as a queen at the side of King Yrcanos, thus providing a great sigh of relief from your humble reviewer. The Master hopes that the Valeyard and the Doctor will destroy each other and leave him free to pillage the universe, and he suggests that the High Council be made to answer for their crimes.

Reasonable.

In the Matrix, we find that the Valeyard’s attack didn’t roll high enough to defeat Glitz’s armor class, and the rogue is convinced to help the Doctor and escape the computer. They enter The Fantasy Factory and meet Mr. Popplewick, a rather stuffy bureaucrat who loves his red tape. The Doctor rushes past the front desk to the proprietor’s office only to find a more officious version of Popplewick. The procedure is sacrosanct!

Before the Doctor is allowed to proceed, he is forced to sign over his remaining regenerations to Mr. J. J. Chambers – the Valeyard – in the event of his “untimely” death. Within moments, he is whisked away to a bleak beach where hands attack from beneath the sand and draw him down, reminiscent of the quicksand traps that permeated much of ’80s television and film adventures. Glitz adopts the role of reliable sidekick and tries to rescue him, but the Doctor overcomes the trap by sheer willpower, pretty much invalidating any amount of physical peril going forward. After a round of taunting from the Valeyard, the evil Time Lord forces the Doctor and Glitz into a nearby hut with a cloud of nerve gas.

The twist: The hut is the Master’s TARDIS. The Master explains that the Valeyard has to be stopped because he has none of the Doctor’s morality, leaving him eviler, more powerful, and a huge threat. The Master tricks the Doctor by putting him in a catatonic state and leaving him as bait for the Valeyard. The Master’s Tissue Compression Eliminator proves useless against the Valeyard and the pair is forced to retreat. Meanwhile, Mel somehow arrives in the Matrix and escorts him out of the Matrix and back to the courtroom.

Mel testifies in the Doctor’s defense, offering footage from Terror of the Vervoids as evidence. The Inquisitor is not swayed, sentencing the Doctor to death. The Doctor accepts the verdict with surprising calm, and we find out that this is yet another Matrix illusion. Outside the Matrix, the real Mel is incensed, prompting her to steal the Key of Rassilon and enter the Matrix. She intercepts the Doctor, but he chides her because he knew it was a ruse based on her digital doppelgänger’s testimony. Together they enter the Fantasy Factory in pursuit of the Valeyard.

The Master charges Glitz, first via failed hypnosis then with a treasure chest, with finding the Ravalox Matrix box. Glitz finds the memory tapes and Mr. Popplewick while the Doctor discovers a list (in his own handwriting) of judges from his trial. Together, they force Popplewick to take them to the Valeyard, but Glitz trades the Doctor for the memory tapes, which he then passes to the Master.

The Doctor reveals Popplewick to be the Valeyard in disguise. He further discovers a maser device aimed at the courtroom, ready to kill the assembled Time Lords as a last resort. The list of names was a hit list. He dispatches Mel to evacuate the courtroom.

In the real world, Gallifrey is collapsing into chaos. The High Council has been deposed by a civilian revolt, and the Master takes the opportunity to seize control. The attempt is stymied when he loads the Ravalox drive into his TARDIS console and it freezes both the Master and Glitz in the Matrix.

Mel tries to evacuate the courtroom while the Doctor destroys the maser using a feedback loop. The surge strikes the Valeyard, knocking him down as the Fantasy Factory explodes. The Doctor returns to reality and learns of Peri’s true fate. The Inquisitor offers the presidency to the Doctor, but he declines, instead offering it to her. He also suggests that the Master should be punished but that Glitz can be reformed.

Leaving his fate up to the Time Lords means that the Master will be back. No doubt.

Mel and the Doctor depart with a quip, and the Doctor nearly abandons Mel at the hint of carrot juice in their future. Instead, they board the TARDIS and take off for points unknown. Meanwhile, the Inquisitor dissolves the court and orders the Keeper to repair and reinforce the Matrix.

Unbeknownst to anyone in attendance, the Keeper is the Valeyard in disguise.

  As part of the Trial of a Time Lord arc, The Ultimate Foe provides a decent enough resolution, bolstered by the revelation that Peri survived and is living a good life. She did look a little sad, but I assume that it’s the weight of her role as leader. I can’t imagine that she actually missed the Sixth Doctor after all the abuse he has subjected her to, but she might miss the thrill of the adventure.

On its own, the story of The Ultimate Foe is fairly weak. The introduction of the Master weakens the power of the Valeyard and turns this “dark Doctor” into “Master Lite”. The disguises, the logical trickery, the drive steal regenerations and kill the Doctor… all of it is just a rehash of the Master’s various machinations. The resolution also points out a massive plot hole: If the Sixth Doctor dies with regenerating, there can’t be a Twelfth Doctor or beyond. The Valeyard cannot exist unless he remains outside of time, and if he does stay outside of time then what is the point of all that power?

On a series continuity note, I did enjoy the call back to the Doctor’s dislike of the nickname “Doc”. We’ve seen it at least three times before: The Time Meddler, The Five Doctors, and The Twin Dilemma.

On a project note, this is the first time that an incarnation’s finale doesn’t get the regeneration handicap. This wasn’t intended as the final story for Colin Baker, and he doesn’t even begin the regeneration process in this story.

  Rating: 2/5 – “Mm? What’s that, my boy?”

  UP NEXT – Twenty-Third Series Summary

    The Timestamps Project is an adventure through the televised universe of Doctor Who, story by story, from the beginning of the franchise. For more reviews like this one, please visit the project’s page at Creative Criticality.

[theonemosteffective]

Chuck Barris, Eclectic Entertainer of ‘Gong Show’ Fame, Dies at 87

Toss Barris, the "Gong Show" maker, musician and author who tried to add to his effectively diverse résumé with a made-up — or would it say it was? — anecdote about being a professional killer for the C.I.A., passed on Tuesday in Palisades, N.Y. He was 87. Mr. Barris passed on of common causes, said Paul Shefrin, his marketing expert, as indicated by The Associated Press. Mr. Barris may have earned a concise specify in the tribute pages with one of his most punctual achievements: he composed the pop melody "Palisades Park," which turned into a hit for Freddy Cannon in 1962 and an insignia of that time of good-time shake "n" roll just before the class' harder, louder side developed. Decades later, in 2007, Mr. Gun, a Massachusetts local, needed to modify the tune into a rally tune for his most loved baseball group, the Boston Red Sox. However, he disclosed to The Boston Globe, he got an objection from Mr. Barris, a Yankee fan, thus "Down at Fenway Park" wound up being a Cannon unique as opposed to a repurposed Barris. Mr. Barris expressed "Palisades Park" along an odd way to a possible vocation in TV. He was conceived in Philadelphia on June 3, 1929; his dad, a dental practitioner, passed on when he was youthful. Subsequent to moving on from Drexel University in 1953, Mr. Barris was acknowledged into an administration preparing program at NBC in 1955. Be that as it may, he disclosed to The Philadelphia Inquirer in a 2003 meeting, the office he was put in — daytime deals — was killed, and he ended up attempting (unsuccessfully) to offer the gadgets then known as TelePrompTers. Keep perusing the fundamental story Amid the payola embarrassments of the 1950s, he was contracted to keep a youthful ABC star, Dick Clark of "American Bandstand," out of inconvenience. ("He sat around doing nothing throughout the day except for drawing on a stack of paper," Mr. Clark disclosed to The Inquirer.) By 1959 he was ABC's executive of West Coast daytime programming. In any case, he needed to make his own shows, and in 1965 he thought of a hit: "The Dating Game," in which a lone rangeress or lone wolf would pick a date from among three inconspicuous individuals from the inverse sex in the wake of making inquiries. He took after that the following year with "The Newlywed Game," another question-and-answer demonstrate that put simply wedded couples' similarity under serious scrutiny. Both shows remained reporting in real time into the mid-1970s and generated arranged spin-offs ("The All-New Dating Game" and "The New Newlywed Game"). Mr. Barris' next diversion shows were less fruitful, yet similarly as it appeared he was losing his touch, he thought of the idea that would launch him to another level of distinction: "The Gong Show," which had its debut on NBC in June 1976. The show highlighted a progression of entertainers, the majority of them beginners, and a board of three VIP judges. Mr. Barris himself was the brash, chafing host. The entertainers, who were frequently ghastly, would be permitted to go ahead until one of the judges couldn't stand it any longer and sounded a gong, putting a conclusion to the exhibition. The individuals who weren't gonged were evaluated by the judges on a 1-to-10 scale. With regards to the craziness of the procedures, the prize sum they competed for was absurd: $516.32 on the daytime adaptation of the show, $712.05 on the prime-time version.

The show, which kept running on NBC until 1978 and after that in syndication (with recoveries in later years), turned into a social sensation. Faultfinders griped about its raunchiness and remorselessness, yet Mr. Barris, similar to purveyors of vaudeville and bazaar sideshows in prior eras, knew there was a substantial gathering of people for lowbrow. At a certain point the daytime rendition was pulling in 78 percent of watchers 18 to 49. "As I would see it, a great diversion demonstrate audit is the kiss of death," Mr. Barris said in a Salon meet in 2001. "In the event that oddly enough the faultfinder enjoyed it, the general population won't. A truly terrible survey implies the show will be on for quite a long time." The apparition of "The Gong Show," obviously, is apparent in various unscripted tv shows of later vintage — the early adjusts of any given period of "American Idol," for example. Mr. Barris constantly abounded at the "Lord of Schlock" name that was held tight him as far back as "The Dating Game." In a 2003 meeting with Newsweek, he noticed that shows much like the ones he made were by the 21st century being gotten in an unexpected way.

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({}); "Today these shows are acknowledged," he said. "These shows aren't viewed as bringing down any bars." Before the finish of the 1970s, on account of "The Gong Show," Mr. Barris' TV generation organization was occupied and gainful, however he was bothersome to have a go at something else. What he attempted, heartbreakingly, was "The Gong Show Movie," which he coordinated and (with Robert Downey Sr.) composed. It tumbled when it was discharged in May 1980. At that point Mr. Barris slowly pulled back from the TV world, offering his property, investing the greater part of his energy in France and swinging to composing. He had officially kept in touch with one book, "You and Me, Babe" (1974), a novel about a TV maker whose marriage fizzled that drew vigorously all alone rough marriage to Lyn Levy, a niece of William Paley, in the 1950s. (They were separated in 1976.) That first book had sold well, however it was the following one that would give Mr. Barris yet another burst of reputation: "Admissions of a Dangerous Mind" (1984), a gathered personal history in which he asserted that while going in his part as a TV maker in the 1960s he was likewise a professional killer for the C.I.A. The book got just a sprinkling of consideration, yet it got a few eyes in Hollywood, and in 2003, after many deferrals, a film variant turned out, coordinated by George Clooney and featuring Sam Rockwell as Mr. Barris. (Charlie Kaufman composed the screenplay, decorating Mr. Barris' story.) The film brought Mr. Barris, at this point in his 70s, a new round of consideration and unlimited minor departure from the conspicuous question: Was it valid? Mr. Barris by and large played bashful, conveying circular answers that neither affirmed nor denied. The C.I.A. was more straightforward: different representatives said Mr. Barris had nothing to do with the organization. In later years Mr. Barris kept on composing books, among them the comic books "The Big Question" (2007), around an amazing diversion indicate where the stakes are actually desperate, and "Who Killed Art Deco?" (2009), about the murder of a rich young fellow. In 2010 he swung to a considerably more genuine subject with "Della: A Memoir of My Daughter," recounting the account of the girl he had with Ms. Exact, who as a young lady here and there turned up on "The Gong Show"; she passed on of a medication overdose in 1998, at 36. Della was Mr. Barris' just youngster. His second marriage, to Robin Altman, finished in separation in 1999. He is made due by his better half, Mary Kane. Which of his few professions was his top pick? In 2007, amid a question-and-reply at the Book Passage book shop in Corte Madera, Calif., he managed the question. "When you go to that incredible amusement appear in the sky," he asked himself, "would you rather be referred to as a creator or as a TV diversion demonstrate maker?" "That is the most straightforward question of all," he reacted. "I would love to be known as a writer, yet I don't believe it's composed that that is the way it will be. I think on my headstone it's quite recently going to state, 'Gonged finally,' and I'm screwed over thanks to that." 

Chuck Barris, Eclectic Entertainer of ‘Gong Show’ Fame, Dies at 87 Featured via theOneMostEffective http://ift.tt/2nLtw0Q