Author Topic: Carlbrook (Read 703741 times)

Anonymous · « **Reply #2445 on:** January 20, 2007, 04:26:43 PM »

Typical features of Cockney speech include:

* Dropped H, as in not 'alf pronounced [a?f], ("not half")
* Diphthong shift of [i?] to [?i] (for example beet [b?i?]), [e?] to [a?] (for example bait [ba??]), [a?] to [??] (for example bite [b???]), and [??] to [o?] (for example, boy [bo?].
* In the /??/ diphthong (as in 'coat'), not only does the nucleus lower, but the offglide tenses as well. Hence /b??t/ for 'boat.'
* The /u:/ (in 'tune') phoneme is centralised, for instance, /b??t/ for 'boot.'
* /æ/ in 'bad' is lengthened somewhat. This feature, in addition to the Monophthongisation of the /au/ phoneme, means that in some dialects the words 'math' and 'mouth' rhyme.
* Merger of /?/-zd- with /f/, and [ð]-d- with /v/, hence [mæfs] for ?maths?, [b?v?] for 'bother'.
* Monophthongisation of /a?/ to [æ?], hence [dæ?n] for ?down?
* Use of a glottal stop for intervocalic 't', as in bottle or butter (but not when it precedes the stress, as in deter); it can also occur between other sonorants, as in mental or in Feltham (the h of which is silent even in RP)
* Considerable glide of the /?:/ phoneme in 'cord' and 'thought.' In words with 'open' syllables like 'floor' and 'bore,' this vowel is pronounced with an upglide, similar to New York English. Hence /k?:?/ for 'core.' In words with 'closed' syllables, such as 'cord' and 'caught,' the vowel glides to /?/, hence /b?:?n/ for 'born.'
* Sometimes, use of a labiodental approximant [?] for /r/, in contrast to an alveolar approximant [?] in RP. To speakers who are not used to [?], this can sound like a /w/.
* Vocalisation of dark l, hence m?ow?? for ?Millwall?.
* Intrusive 'R' after a vowel, hence 'America-r-is' for 'America is'
* Use of me instead of my
* Use of ain't instead of isn't, am not, are not, has not, and have not
* Use of "In'it" to question a positive when making a statement, for example, "Good day today in'it?"

Example: Faw'y fahsan' frushes flew ova fawn'n 'eaf for Forty thousand thrushes flew over Thornton Heath

In other instances single words might be changed drastically like the name 'Heather' usually /?h?.ð?(?)/ Cockney /??.v?/.

The lengthening of the vowel sound in (for example) grass (from [græs] to [gra?s]) was a Cockney innovation which spread and by 1900 was used by many southern English accents. Most of the features mentioned above have in recent years partly spread into more general south-eastern speech, giving the accent called Estuary English); an Estuary speaker will use some but not all of the Cockney sounds. The characteristics of Cockney as opposed to Estuary are the dropping of H and grammatical features like the use of ain't.

A television advertisement for Heineken beer in the 1980s showed a Sloane woman receiving elocution lessons in Cockney, parodying My Fair Lady. In the advert, she was being taught to say "The wa'er in Majorca don' taste like wot it ough' a", but could only manage a posh rendition of "The water in Mallorca doesn't taste quite how it should" (until, of course, she drank the beer).

Today, the traditional form of Cockney English is declining in usage within London, displaced by a Jamaican Creole-influenced variety gaining popularity amongst young Londoners, particulary, though far from exclusively, those of Afro-Caribbean descent. Nevertheless, some terms such as 'rabbit' (rabbit and pork = talk) are still in common usage.

Anonymous · « **Reply #2446 on:** January 20, 2007, 04:54:39 PM »

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 1387949808

Karen, why do you laugh at your kid like that when he is screaming for help?

Anonymous · « **Reply #2447 on:** January 20, 2007, 05:51:46 PM »

Quote from: ""hanzomon4""

What's a Cockney?

A true Cockney was born under the Bo Bells, which is an area in London

Deborah · « **Reply #2448 on:** January 31, 2007, 08:25:31 PM »

Do the kids drink the tap water?

Local Water System Report
Carlbrook School
Halifax, VA
Serves: 90 people

An Environmental Working Group analysis of tap water tests from 2002 through 2003 shows that customers of Carlbrook School drank water containing up to 11 pollutants. Carlbrook School is one of 65,000 water suppliers across the country wrestling with treating water polluted by sprawl, sewage, factory farms, and industry.

Pollution Summary
11 Total Contaminants Detected (2002 - 2003)
Chloroform, Bromodichloromethane, Dibromochloromethane, Total trihalomethanes (TTHMs), Xylenes (total), Ethylbenzene, Alpha particle activity (excl radon and uranium), Alpha particle activity (incl. radon & uranium), Radium-226, Radium-228, Gross beta particle activity (pCi/L)

1 Agricultural Pollutants (pesticides, fertilizer, factory farms)
Ethylbenzene

1 Sprawl and Urban Pollutants (road runoff, lawn pesticides, human waste)
Xylenes (total)

7 Industrial Pollutants
Xylenes (total), Ethylbenzene, Alpha particle activity (excl radon and uranium), Alpha particle activity (incl. radon & uranium), Radium-226, Radium-228, Gross beta particle activity (pCi/L)

4 Water Treatment and Distribution Byproducts (pipes and fixtures, treatment chemicals and byproducts)
Chloroform, Bromodichloromethane, Dibromochloromethane, Total trihalomethanes (TTHMs)

5 Naturally Occurring (naturally present but increased for lands denuded by sprawl, agriculture, or industrial development)
Alpha particle activity (excl radon and uranium), Alpha particle activity (incl. radon & uranium), Radium-226, Radium-228, Gross beta particle activity (pCi/L)

Contaminants found in your tap water (2002 - 2003): 11

Health effects or target organs of contaminants found: Cardiovascular or Blood Toxicity, Cancer, Developmental Toxicity, Endocrine Toxicity, Immunotoxicity, Kidney Toxicity, Gastrointestinal or Liver Toxicity, Neurotoxicity, Reproductive Toxicity, Respiratory Toxicity, and Skin Sensitivity.
View Details

Contaminants found above health based limits: 2*
Contaminants listed may not have exceeded legal limits, which are set to balance cost and benefits and are often higher than health-based limits - see note below.

Contaminant/ Name/ Average Result/ Maximum Result/ Health Limit Exceeded/ Has Legal Limit/ Legal Limit Exceeded

Bromodichloromethane 3 ppb 6.4 ppb Yes Yes No
Disinfection by-product
Dibromochloromethane 1.23 ppb 2.2 ppb Yes Yes No
Disinfection by-product
Total trihalomethanes (TTHMs) 7.63 ppb 16.8 ppb Yes Yes No
Measure of four disinfection by-products

* This table contains one or more listings for a chemical group which comprises individual chemicals that are also listed in the table. The chemical group is not counted separately in numbers presented for total chemicals detected.

NOTE: Health based limits included in this analysis include enforceable drinking water limits (called Maximum Contaminant Limits, or MCLs) as well as governmental, non-enforceable health guidelines, such as Maximum Contaminant Limit Goals (MCLGs), lifetime health advisory levels, one-day and ten-day advisory levels to protect children from non-cancer health endpoints, and other government-established health guidelines for tap water contaminants.

Violation Summary

Total Violations: 1
Health Violations: 1

View Full Violation Summary
http://www.ewg.org/tapwater/yourwater/s ... =VA5083270

Troll Control · « **Reply #2449 on:** February 01, 2007, 09:10:24 AM »

Is that water tester manipulating again? Sounds perfectly healthy to me! :roll:

Charly · « **Reply #2450 on:** February 01, 2007, 10:02:44 AM »

They mixed it with vodka to kill the bacteria.

Troll Control · « **Reply #2451 on:** February 01, 2007, 10:11:29 AM »

Quote from: ""Charly""

They mixed it with vodka to kill the bacteria.

Now that's my kind of TBS! :wink:

Charly · « **Reply #2452 on:** February 01, 2007, 12:41:46 PM »

Toasting you with my Carlbrook water bottle!

Anonymous · « **Reply #2453 on:** March 25, 2007, 02:38:02 AM »

So... I read a lot of the thread here, but couldn't keep going - so much anger. And maybe it's justified. My son went to Carlbrook, completed the program. Looking back, yes, I put on blinders, didn't look carefully at what was actually going on there. At the time I sent him, it looked to me like my son was headed for jail or death - was dealing, was involved with gangs, lying, cheating, stealing... he was determined to do what he was doing; I was determined not to let him die. Did I over-react? Would he have been just fine if I had let him stay at home, continue partying, dealing, doing what he wanted? I don't know, maybe. Maybe all that Carlbrook did was keep him out of trouble for 15 months.

My take on the Carlbrook staff: Tim seems harmless to me, and genuine. Glen Bender is a cipher - he seems like a background figure, looking good with his PhD. Grant Price is scary. I certainly got that he was a kid who himself needed to be sent away. A master manipulator. He's a Cascade grad who wanted to make a better program. A year or so ago there was a "rebellion" at Carlbrook and since then they have gotten much more strict. Grant has become the "heavy."

I know more now than I knew then. If I realized (or let myself realize) that it was essentially recycled EST, I probably would have pulled my kid out. Or maybe not. I was scared as shit about what would happen to him out in the world.

I've asked my son if he thinks going to Carlbrook was a good thing or a bad thing. I've gotten different answers different times. He graduated two years ago. He's beginning to question the ethics of the "groups" and "workshops" and so am I. When all is said and done, he says it was good. But I still don't know.

You guys, DJ, etc, please realize: we parents did not "send our kids away" because we didn't love them, wanted to dump them on someone else, wanted them abused, etc. We were scared they were going to die. Kid do. Die, that is. Kids who are dealing, stealing, getting arrested, snorting coke, etc, etc. Some of those kids die. I didn't want my kid to be one of them. I love him like crazy. I always have and always will.

My son and I have a good relationship today. Maybe one day he'll come to his senses and hate me for sending him to Carlbrook. I hope not. But, if it is, so be it. I did the best I could. I made the best decision I could.

He's doing great. Maybe he's posting on this site, who knows.

I wish all of you the best. The world is a scary place and we all do the best we can.

Anonymous · « **Reply #2454 on:** March 25, 2007, 03:05:05 AM »

If that's what makes you feel good to think, then I guess that's what you'll think.

Sending your kid to a duckfarm couldn't possibly help him. Maybe remove him from a bad environment for a while, but, hey, "wherever you go, there you are."

Carlbrook is a dangerous place for developing minds. It should be strictly avoided, especially since now they've gotten "heavy." This is scary news and reinforced the need to STAY AWAY FROM CARLBROOK!

Oz girl · « **Reply #2455 on:** March 25, 2007, 05:42:26 AM »

Quote from: ""inquirmind1""

My son and I have a good relationship today. Maybe one day he'll come to his senses and hate me for sending him to Carlbrook. I hope not. But, if it is, so be it. I did the best I could. I made the best decision I could.
He's doing great. Maybe he's posting on this site, who knows.
I wish all of you the best. The world is a scary place and we all do the best we can.

I would hope that he does not ever come to hate you.That would be awful for both of you. perhaps the fact that you are now aware that Carlbrook is not all beer and skittles helps because your son is aware that you can keep an open mind so that if it was a negative experience for him he wont be shut out for mentioning this.

exhausted · « **Reply #2456 on:** March 25, 2007, 08:53:19 AM »

Quote from: ""Guest""

If that's what makes you feel good to think, then I guess that's what you'll think.

Sending your kid to a duckfarm couldn't possibly help him. Maybe remove him from a bad environment for a while, but, hey, "wherever you go, there you are."

Carlbrook is a dangerous place for developing minds. It should be strictly avoided, especially since now they've gotten "heavy." This is scary news and reinforced the need to STAY AWAY FROM CARLBROOK!

She/He knows that now, don't be so harsh, parent's send their kids away because they really believe they are doing what is best or that it's the ony option, we all know how manipulated parents are when it comes to saving their kids' life by these programs.......at least this person is able to see things in the perspective they need to be put in, that is rare in a program parent who usually defend their actions to the hilt, give her/him some slack - jees

nimdA · « **Reply #2457 on:** March 25, 2007, 10:21:44 AM »

Fuck what the parents has to say. Tell us more about this rebellion.

I'm all about rebellion in program.. More the merrier!

hanzomon4 · « **Reply #2458 on:** March 25, 2007, 11:02:28 AM »

Well anon-parent I appreciate the honesty, I'm always on the fence when it comes to program-parents. On one hand I want to despise them on the other hand I feel sorry for them.

But, yeah I really don't have anything intelligent to say at the moment, what's up with this rebellion?

nimdA · « **Reply #2459 on:** March 25, 2007, 11:11:25 AM »

Pretty much how I feel Hanzomom. I've defended them in the past so they will at least speak their piece. More often than not they turn into raving nutters.

I third my own motion with another cry for more details about this here rebellion.

I think I might put a chapter on effective rebellion strategies in my Escaper and suriviors guide.

Fornits
Fornits Home for Wayward Web Fora
An open discussion about the troubled parent industry