Nov. 12, 1935: You Should (Not) Have a Lobotomy

gee is this a new name for a old issue or a new issue having a old name? doublespeak, dumb idea what idiot would come up with a reply like that? a person whose family meber had the opportunity to be one of the nurses who took care of the persons "treated" to that and other procedures at various canadian hospitals recieving assistance in research into behavior modification techniques via the c.i.a, and while i can only guess it was possible some levels of assistance in that and or other ongoing research in "treatments" to reorganize the thought patterns of persons who were and may under some expert persons views be/are exhibiting suspect anti-social behaviours the r.c.m.p.'s medical corpsmen operating out of macgill university in canada.

'da ber

So, did it hurt?

your quoting of a the simpsons episode provides a more than subtle hint of your "thinking and comprehension" abilities. am i correct by replying to the post the effort you took to repeat it could indicate you unlike those poor wretches would have ben or are a more suitable subject for that procedure's being done by dr. icepick, or the now standardized forms of chemical lobotomy.

'da ber

p.s. get a life and learn to read

Or, as the hard-drinking wit Dorothy Parker observed: "I'd rather have a bottle in front of me, than a frontal lobotomy."

There's really not much difference after about 20 years, except the drinking costs more. Too bad most people still don't know alcohol destroys brain cells, or they're in denial. I've met some real nut cases who won't give up the booze.