as per your request

[Stripe]

JU- You wrote:

The architecture (and intent) of this site is designed with the Seed as defendant. If we are going to continue to hold court, why shouldn?t it be the other way? Why shouldn?t The Seed be the complainant?

To answer your proposal - I think perhaps theseed already had its day: As the plaintiff, as the judge and as the jury.  That's what it did for all the years of its existence.  It was designed to hold people accountable for their personal transgressions, problems, mistakes, crimes, errors, drug use - whatever you want to call them.

And you and me and every other person who was in that program,voluntarily or not, were the judge and jury and in some instances, the emotional executioner of other program participants.

[Stripe]

On 2005-09-04 15:05:00, Ft. Lauderdale wrote:

"Stripe,

Where did you come up with JRENFRO.  I went skiing

with someone by that name in 1978 or 79.  I back tracked but am baffeled?  :question: "

I mistyped that - It should be rjfro22 (it's right backup the thread). Sorry for the confusion.  [ This Message was edited by: Stripe on 2005-09-05 10:38 ]

[Anonymous]

Or running your country for that matter!

[marshall]

I appreciate sarcastic humor too, as long as it isn't mean-spirited. I am curious as to how familiar you might be with this form of communication (internet message boards). Have you participated on other sites? When I first encountered message boards, I had a tendency to approach them much like you did this one. I'd read and think; 'Those' people are so f*cked up!...and lump everyone together as one.

There are specific problems with this form of communication that lend themselves easily  to misunderstandings. It's often hard to tell if someone is being silly, sarcastic or cruel. None of the cues that we usually rely upon are present. No voice tone, no body language, no facial expressions. It's easy to have conflicts even with people that you may see eye to eye with in this medium. Civil discourse takes extra effort. People tend to talk past each other regardless of the topic. Given this, it is easy to see how others might misunderstand you (thinking you are serious when you're kidding or sarcastic) & you may be misunderstanding others for the same reason.

For much of the same reasons listed above, it is also a fool's task to attempt to determine another person's state of mind, intention, attitude, etc just by reading posts on a board like this. I once believed I was having conversations with 5 distinct people on a website only to later find out that they were all the same person using different monikers! There are lots of good points for this form of communication, but to use it profitably we all need to keep in mind it's basic shortcomings as well. A person may spend 90% of their time giving to others in some way yet it might be easy to conclude that they are completely selfish or self-indulgent based upon what they choose to write on a message board such as this....especially one that specifically asks for personal experiences. Conversely, one could write all sorts of glowing, wonderfully compassionate things here and be a mass murderer or rapist in real life. Unless your gift of awareness extends into literal ESP (which I think Art and some others did embrace, btw) it is silly to attempt to judge and evaluate anyone based soley upon what they write here...just as it is foolish for anyone to judge your own state of mind based upon the same. It is for this reason that it's best to stick to agreement or disagreement with actual ideas being discussed rather than attempting to dissect the person behind them. This may be partly why you see much of what is discussed here as 'pseudointellectual'.

You may be an old hand at message boards, if so you probably already know all of this. Thanks for the individual responses...much nicer even when people disagree.

[marshall]

Hi marc. The reference to "spewing venom" was John's term describing critics of the seed used in his first post here. Not my term and it wasn't directed towards you. (See how confusing this can be :silly:  
-------quote------
"There were a number of kind human deeds I witnessed in the Seed. Kindness can happen anywhere. But the institution itself . . . I think it was evil. Is that venomous?"
------------

I think I've said the same thing in slightly different words. Instead of 'institution' I think I said I found the methodology (coercive thought reform) repugnant. You & I seem pretty-much on the same page when it comes to the Seed. I appreciate your input.

[Anonymous]

On 2005-09-02 16:07:00, cleveland wrote:

And I was a super-loyal, full time Seed kid for 7 years, pal. So...

YOUR choice - not mine.  When I graduated the program and felt I had achieved my "goal" (getting off drugs and such), I was sooo looking forward to getting on w/ MY life and did!!  Were you shackled at the time?? I was not - I moved on.

[marcwordsmith]

At the risk of speaking for someone else, Anonymous, I think Cleveland's point was simply that, given he was a loyal Seedling for a long time, his criticisms of the Seed shouldn't be casually dismissed by JU or anyone else. He wasn't complaining about his tenure.

Good for you for moving on with your life. I hope it's been good, on balance.

[cleveland]

Funny, I just went back on this thread and read JU's posting directed to me, dripping with sarcasm. I guess I must have touched a nerve, John, I'm sorry. I am also glad that you have achieved your goals, and that you are living a good, productive life. I apologise for my own sarcasm, which is a weapon of weakness. My weakness is my anger in reaction to your post, where you flip my own questioning and challenging the Seed back on me - essentially to put me on trial for my Seed years, my relationship with my family, my own integrity, and my present.

Wow.

I am back on the front row, I guess! Fortunately, I am an adult at this point, and I WILL walk out those doors. At the age of 19, I was in turmoil, looking for someone to tell me, please, what to do with my life. The Seed supplied all of the answers without ambiguity, and I signed on. I won't do so now.

I won't take the bait, John.

All I am doing here is exploring my feelings, both positive and negative, about my 7 year association with now-defunct drug rehab/cult/community of choice, whatever you want to call it. I have legitimate questions about the value of that association for me, the usefulness of that model in current treatment for addiction, and the role of coercion, peer pressure and 'choice' play. I have seen family members struggle with addiction, including my own mom who required a legal and financial guardian and involuntary treatment for alcohol-induced mental and physical breakdown, so I have struggled with these issues in a way that is not merely academic.

I would love it, John, if you would address these issues: when is it OK to compel someone into treatment? What should the nature of that treatment be? And what are the limits to that treatment, if 'tough-love' or whatever is a part of it than how do you eliminate abuses?

Walter

[Stripe]

To the forum participants and moderators:

I have not re-read this thread or the other John Underwood threads, nor do I care to. My first read through was enough.  I found the responses more often than not condescending and really insufficient.  This is especially so in light of the fact that the moderator guaranteed Mr. Underwood would be immune from the very kind of responses he has put out there to some very probing and sincere questions.

Frankly, I got nothing much at all from the what Underwood posted - well, other than pissed off at myself for: 1) wasting my time (again) and 2) actually believing for even one instant that there would be a truthful, thoughtful response from a responsible staff member. My bad.

I do feel for the folks who put in years at the seed only to be summarily dismissed and insulted with sarcastic and caustic responses from Underwood.

I just think it's very interesting and telling that Mr. Underwood could not stop himself from attempting to undermine and put down the questioners -- even in the face of the moderator's guarnatees.  The flawed dogma and programmed thought processes prevail.  That's enough to convince me of the value of what I read and the longterm effects of that programming.

I try every day to be impeccable with my word, spoken and written. Some days I succeed, some days I fall short.  But regardless of the end result of my effort, if I am wrong I acknowledge it and try to learn from my errors.

What I see here in this discussion, and the others, is that in the Seed world there is no error.  If there is any error to be perceived or entertained, it falls fully upon me to acknowledge it and deal with the consequences - whether the error is mine or anothers.

[Anonymous]

I object. Overruled. I'll see you in my chambers.

[Anonymous]

striper Do you mean remarks like:
"it just goes to show that you are a sheep - a follower, a bleater. BAAAHHHH Someone who has no original thoughts whatsoever. BAAAHHHH"
oh nevermind, that was you who wrote that.

[Anonymous]

and striper:
"I try every day to be impeccable with my word, spoken and written."
ru f___kin' kiddin' me? what drugs are you on that can produce this kind of self-delusion?
please reveal your dealer's name.

[Antigen]

Lame! Calling Stripe a stripper is probably not going to have the impact you might expect. I know she's been called worse. Some ppl call her "lawyer".

The mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble by us, and I for one must be content to remain an agnostic.
--Charles Robert Darwin, English naturalist

[Anonymous]

correction: did not call her stripper, called her striper.
and if this is what you found important in the above posts...

[Anonymous]

...and you're right, antigen, being called lawyer is much worse