Anne S. Hall aka "Ottawa5" aka "Gentiana" - What Do You Know

[Troll Control]

sheeeeee's baaaaaaack.....

[blownawaytheidahoway]

On the subject of abusive programs: most likely every caring parent would agree with me that abusive programs need to be shut down and immediately.

Some things (beating, starving, complete sensory deprivation as examples) would unequivocally be abusive to everyone I know.

But what about things that not everyone seems to agree on?

For example, at the school my child went to, a student could get put "on a booth", which meant that for the time of the restriction, the student sat at a booth in the cafeteria daily, not talking to other students, and leaving for bathroom breaks (and I think walking-around with an escort breaks), to get food, and of course to sleep. The rest of the time, the student was assigned to a therapeutic project such as to be working on an essay of some sort.

Personally I wouldn't consider this abusive, especially when staff members know the child and see a need. I know kids who were "on a booth", and didn't like it at the time, naturally. Now, years later, they realize that the experience was helpful in figuring out some things that they were not able to focus on in the rush of day-to-day life. But some people do think of this as abuse and are quite vocal about it elsewhere on the web.

Similarly, what about limiting what particular food items are available (caffeine in particular comes to mind) until certain program milestones are attained.

Or not getting to wear some items (the color black for example) until a certain point in the program was reached. This doesn't seem like a problem to me, in fact, it's rather a reflection of life and growing up and into roles in any society.

It may be that some of the people most vocal against any restriction of adolescent behaviors have their own issues to resolve on some level. Perhaps they retain a strong identification with adolescent acting-out behaviors, and rage follows when they see other adolescents limited in such behaviors.

But what about adults, parents on this forum for example, who I've got to believe want the very best for their kids?

Any comments of what you think constitutes abuse would be appreciated.

Because when government regulation comes--and you can hear the drum-beat--I think all of us who support the very existence of good therapeutic schools, have to have a clear impression of what "abuse" is.

It's pretty obvious that government regulation can at times be pretty broad and even ham-handed. If people whose families have benefited from these schools can clearly articulate an opinion on what is discipline versus what is abuse, there's less chance that people with other agendas can pervert the regulatory process in ways that damage the abilities of therapeutic schools to help kids.

And really, what are the alternatively when you've tried everything possible for a kid at home who is way off track and self-destructive? Having worked with kids who have gotten into enough trouble to enter the juvenile/adult prison system, I have to believe that most parents would want to have other placement options, such as emotional growth/therapeutic boarding schools, if they had a child whose behaviors were headed in the criminal justice system direction.

[blownawaytheidahoway]

Some things (beating, starving, complete sensory deprivation as examples) would unequivocally be abusive to everyone I know.
BLOWN: Using those methods would be ok if this woman didn’t know them, evidently.
But what about things that not everyone seems to agree on?
BLOWN: Let’s TRY to agree!

For example, at the school my child went to, a student could get put "on a booth", which meant that for the time of the restriction, the student sat at a booth in the cafeteria daily, not talking to other students, and leaving for bathroom breaks (and I think walking-around with an escort breaks), to get food, and of course to sleep. The rest of the time, the student was assigned to a therapeutic project such as to be working on an essay of some sort.
  Personally I wouldn't consider this abusive, especially when staff members know the child and see a need. I know kids who were "on a booth", and didn't like it at the time, naturally. Now, years later, they realize that the experience was helpful in figuring out some things that they were not able to focus on in the rush of day-to-day life. But some people do think of this as abuse and are quite vocal about it elsewhere on the web.

BLOWNAWAY writes:

That’s NOT, at all, an accurate portrayal of what a “booth restriction” was. That doesn’t begin to describe it, even from the pro- program stand point. Writing an “essay of some sort” Doesn’t even begin to describe the nature of the non- therapy that you describe so inaccurately. A series of mandatory self itemization lists, and written evidence of coerced confessions in the regulated group environment. To be more specific a person on a booth restriction would often write Dirt and disclosure lists. The agreements about what was “acceptable” behavior and “out of agreement”, “unacceptable” behavior was according only to the standard mandate of the school’s impossible command. Ergo, being “in agreement” was non- existent, as you would only be punished for following the program too closely. It was a metaphor for life if you schloffed through the program and did the bare minimum. As a footnote to this last comment please recognize that the bare minimum entailed suffering abusive “rap” sessions where verbal tormenting was NECESSARY therapy! Also, really quickly because I’m also really busy working on a book to describe the therapy of CEDU and the ideology of “behavior modification programs” and people like this poster with sour mother’s milk- there was these six or nine hours of physical labor during the benign “booth restrictions”. She didn’t mention the US labor laws or the specific mechanics of what this kind of “project” FORCED under the very shoddy and spongy name of therapy entails in a totalitarian setting like CEDU was. Please keep that in mind as we try to agree with her, ok?

Now, go on....What was she saying?

[blownawaytheidahoway]

By the way, SUE ME. Because YOU detract from the truth of what the experience is all about in your posts. You are one tiny step from lying. So, sue me, you snuntch.

[Anonymous]

Well, I spent time at the booth for trying to split.  I did not mind at all the labor and dishes.   I even liked the writing assignments, although I will say that if I wrote, "I really miss my family" or "I don't like all the yelling at raps" the facilitators would say "don't you see how sick you are?   So, once again, I was conditioned to repress or invalidate normal human emotions and authentic feelings and accept false emotional schematics.

I remember having to write pages and pages of emotionally intense essays only to have my family head say that I was a good writer but she wasn't giving it to the person running my table. (It was written for this other person.)

I don't really remember the booth that much except that Pam Abell would visit me, and she was always nice to me. She never harped on me like my family heads--who were always talking to me about things in the past that I didn't do. (Which is why I could not take their "direction" or "therapy" seriously.)   I think Pam knew I was honest, and certain people there thought since they were dishonest, everyone was. Or maybe she was just playing "good cop."

What was bad was not the table, necessarily, but the raps whether you were on restriction or not, because you were subjected to hours of intense emotional abuse... and maybe if you were a truly evil person, who cares? But what if the abuse is designed to humiliate and break down kids who had poor self esteem or other issues like depression? What if the abuse is designed to repress normal thoughts and fears and normalize abusive communication techniques? What if the abuse is to badger you about things that never happened--like being a drug addict, a bulimic, or a whore?

These were TYPICAL, ENDEMIC, SYSTEMIC realities of rap. Hence, they could never be therapeutic.   You don't teach kids self respect, self esteem, or pro social behavior by humiliation, manipulation, and deceit.   It just doesn't work that way.

I think of my sons, and what if I put them in chairs, sat across from them and screamed and berated them for not making their beds or touching their penises? What if I screamed at them for having normal thoughts and feelings, and banned them from things like books, the sun (yes this happened), a girl they smiled at... What if I put them in 24 hour long workshops and made them spill their guts so I could exploit and ridicule them in front of others? What if I played with their minds in these workshops and ordered them to do things like punch eachother, like in the IWTL Propheet? What if they tried pot and I called them drug addicts and treated them as such?  Would this be  productive?  

I understand the fear parents feel when their kids go down a very dark path.  Especially the VERY DARK paths. But so many of these kids needed help with self esteem and self respect, and you don't get that from repeated abuse and bullying. Even for "incorrigible" kids, you can't teach them positive behaviors using abusive techniques. You can teach them to be more manipulative, more insidious, and more conniving.  

In fact, the few, true con artist type students just honed their skills at CEDU. Just like in prison, where criminals often learn to be more criminally sophisticated.  Only at Cedu, you were learning from staff.

Last, there is no no way you can learn self love if you are brow beaten daily about how "bad" or "sick" you are, and broken down, but not built up with anything of AUTHENTIC value.

That is why Ottawa's defense of the program is reprehensible.

Shanlea

[Antigen]

...or a million mosquitoes...

This is one of the more insidious aspects of the program. When you describe any one objective event or policy all by itself it sounds petty. When you try to describe the entire mindfuck comprehensively it takes too long and people lose interest or just can't relate it to anything they know. It's a lot like the way a regular old, garden variety child abuser or wife beater will be careful not to leave bruises or other hard evidence so that the victim won't be taken seriously if they try to tell somebody.

Here's a similar discussion from the Straight vets' forum:
http://wwf.fornits.com/viewtopic.php?p=253531#253531

Thanks DP for putting it so concisely.

[blownawaytheidahoway]

And different treatment has different impacts on people. It amazes me how many different mediums were used on us as kids. Like anything the program said was important WAS important. If you're on a booth for three weeks and the only book you can look at is jonathanlivingstonseagull, you're going attribute a lot of importance to the things you "concentrated on" about yourself and the people "supporting you" at that tough time.

The insidiousness of it all is the hard part to describe. It's the totalitarianism of what to wear, to think, to say, to listen to and when, to talk to and not to for why and sometimes "why the fuck not". For me, it's because they tried to tell me how to think and what to believe...they took GOD away from me and took away my individual identity to be restored painfully years later. And I agree that describing any ONE part of it always sounds petty, but anyone reading between the lines and getting a sense of how it all works, and remembering it's underdeveloped TEEN's and YOUNG adults we're talking about, would remember and clearly be able to see how this would fuck you up...

We must all take the time to write about that insidiousness so it can be understood better.
How did CEDU and Cascade and the rest change your relationship to your world (and parental relationships, especially) at THAT time, and the time afterwards.

ps Shan, hey girl, got your email. too bad you didn't get to stick around for the last several months at CEDU, those "workshops" were SO so strange. Really freaky stuff that's difficult to describe. By itself it sounds almost innocuous, but add in the counselors and the peer group relationships and the weirdness becomes transparently evident.

[Antigen]

Indeed! I think it's especially important that people generally come to some understanding of how a hundred little irritations and anxieties can drive a kid fucking nuts. Seems that the ToughLove hategroup has become deeply entrenched in the schooling industry. Zero Tolerance and all that drives some kids over the edge. Then, when they act out, they either get shipped off for some more intense 'treatment'. I know of a couple of kids in that situation right now. I try to tell them to hang on, give them some tips for getting by till they come of age or at least show them a little solidarity. And, of course, I've sent my progeny out into the bowels of the machine with pockets full of sand LOL.

But really it's not enough. We're the grown ups now. How frightening is that?! We gotta do something to break this shit down before we'vve got a full on holocaust never to be lived down.

[sick of child torture girl]

On the subject of abusive programs: most likely every caring parent would agree with me that abusive programs need to be shut down and immediately.

Some things (beating, starving, complete sensory deprivation as examples) would unequivocally be abusive to everyone I know.

But what about things that not everyone seems to agree on?

For example, at the school my child went to, a student could get put "on a booth", which meant that for the time of the restriction, the student sat at a booth in the cafeteria daily, not talking to other students, and leaving for bathroom breaks (and I think walking-around with an escort breaks), to get food, and of course to sleep. The rest of the time, the student was assigned to a therapeutic project such as to be working on an essay of some sort.

Personally I wouldn't consider this abusive, especially when staff members know the child and see a need. I know kids who were "on a booth", and didn't like it at the time, naturally. Now, years later, they realize that the experience was helpful in figuring out some things that they were not able to focus on in the rush of day-to-day life. But some people do think of this as abuse and are quite vocal about it elsewhere on the web.

Similarly, what about limiting what particular food items are available (caffeine in particular comes to mind) until certain program milestones are attained.

Or not getting to wear some items (the color black for example) until a certain point in the program was reached. This doesn't seem like a problem to me, in fact, it's rather a reflection of life and growing up and into roles in any society.

It may be that some of the people most vocal against any restriction of adolescent behaviors have their own issues to resolve on some level. Perhaps they retain a strong identification with adolescent acting-out behaviors, and rage follows when they see other adolescents limited in such behaviors.

But what about adults, parents on this forum for example, who I've got to believe want the very best for their kids?

Any comments of what you think constitutes abuse would be appreciated.

Because when government regulation comes--and you can hear the drum-beat--I think all of us who support the very existence of good therapeutic schools, have to have a clear impression of what "abuse" is.

It's pretty obvious that government regulation can at times be pretty broad and even ham-handed. If people whose families have benefited from these schools can clearly articulate an opinion on what is discipline versus what is abuse, there's less chance that people with other agendas can pervert the regulatory process in ways that damage the abilities of therapeutic schools to help kids.

And really, what are the alternatively when you've tried everything possible for a kid at home who is way off track and self-destructive? Having worked with kids who have gotten into enough trouble to enter the juvenile/adult prison system, I have to believe that most parents would want to have other placement options, such as emotional growth/therapeutic boarding schools, if they had a child whose behaviors were headed in the criminal justice system direction.

I find this post bizzare

For example, at the school my child went to, a student could get put "on a booth", which meant that for the time of the restriction, the student sat at a booth in the cafeteria daily, not talking to other students, and leaving for bathroom breaks (and I think walking-around with an escort breaks), to get food, and of course to sleep. The rest of the time, the student was assigned to a therapeutic project such as to be working on an essay of some sort.For example, at the school my child went to, a student could get put "on a booth", which meant that for the time of the restriction, the student sat at a booth in the cafeteria daily, not talking to other students, and leaving for bathroom breaks (and I think walking-around with an escort breaks), to get food, and of course to sleep. The rest of the time, the student was assigned to a therapeutic project such as to be working on an essay of some sort..

blown away
are you saying your son went to a tbs? (oh my god)
umm yeah thats abusive. Thats  isolation, humilation unlawful confinement and as I persume the kid would not be alowed to simply walk off-assault.

In fact what you are describing is a clinical definition of torture
To place the current concerns in context: Note that it is now illegal to use any of the following practices with regard to the treatment of U.S. detainees in Guantanamo Bay and other facilities:
o Use of phobias & fears to induce stress
o Physical training (forced calisthenics)
o Exposure to cold weather
o Sleep Deprivation
o Nutritional Deprivation
o Slapping face or stomach
o Stress positions (e.g. prolonged standing)
o Isolation greater than 30 days
o Forced Labor
o Denial of Use of Bathroom
0 restriction of movement

There is Isolation longer than 30 days-  (i see no time limit for what you mention) & that is considered torture.

Having to write essays while doing nothing but sitting around in isolation(only other activity being sleep)- and i assume the essays would be something along the lines of "why I'm in the booth" would qualify as an attempt to brainwash an individual and is outlawed by the Geneva conventions, as torture

The thereputic activitiy I suspose would be labor of some sort and forced labor is also considered torture by the AMA- especially under this context

Only being allowed to go to the bathroom with an escort can only be construed as a deliberate act of torment as such an act can only be a further attampt to "dominate" and make a youth feel claustrophbic, helpless. Why else would you do it?(induce phobia) Also consdidered torture by the AMA in this context. Prisoners & patients at PH's are not given "escorts" as punishment. And depending on the context that would be very illegal,

It would also be deemed torture by the AMA if the youth is not given privacy by the "escort" in the bathroom

Only being allowed to sit ALL DAYwould entail restricton of movement-again torture

The situation descibed above is not only abuse, it is clearly torture intendedto be applied to a youth until they "break". What you are describing is a level of coersion that is not only illegal in pyschiatric hospitals but in prisoner of war camps

Im gonna assume there is some mistake and you didnt mean that Blown?

This is the conclusion to the paper about TORTURE applied to Iraquis, and what you are describing is essentially the same. If its illegal to to do to Iraquis in the name of forcing them to confess them than it should be illegal to do teens in the name of helping them.


"The authors concluded that aggressive interrogation techniques or detention procedures involving deprivation of basic needs, exposure to adverse environmental conditions, forced stress positions,  ISLOLATION,RESTRICTION OF MOVEMENT forced nudity, THREATS, HUMILIATING TREATMENT and other PSYCHOLOGICAL MANIPULATIONS do not appear to be substantially different from physical torture in terms of the extent of mental suffering they cause, the underlying mechanisms of traumatic stress and their long-term traumatic effects. These findings do not support the distinction between torture versus "other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment." Although international conventions prohibit both types of acts, "such a distinction nevertheless reinforces the misconception that cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment causes lesser harm and might therefore be permissible under exceptional circumstances. These findings point to a need for a broader definition of torture based on scientific formulations of traumatic stress and empirical evidence rather than on vague distinctions or labels that are open to endless and inconclusive debate and, most important, potential abuse."

[Antigen]

No, no! Idaho doesn't have any sons (that he knows of.... anonymous father's day card anyone?) He was quoting Ottawa5 who used to be a regular around here. She's a program parent gone head-hunter or one of the queen bees he was describing earlier.

Makes more sense that way, eh?

[try another castle]

No, no! Idaho doesn't have any sons

Yes he does. He and I had a love-child. We call him Waffles.

[Antigen]

Aw, how sweet!

[Froderik]

I know her personally, too. "Ottawa" is intelligent, ignorant, gifted with words, and cold-hearted. Also, many of us who know her definitely know that something is amiss. I mean there is SERIOUSLY something wrong with her - it's her personality. This woman is sick and she believes she's God's answer to everything.



I know her through a professional contact - I do not wish to say more.

Interesting... :rofl:

[Froderik]

I've had a few run-ins with this psychopath.  She's made all sorts of threats - to sue me, to find out my address and post it, to find out where I work and try to get me fired, etc.  

This is all, originally, because I rejected her reasoning and had what should have been an intellectual argument with her.  Of course, as anyone who has dealt with her knows, she became abusive and condescending, getting progressively more viscious and threatening.

She has been known to post posing as her son, posing as her daughter and just simply anonymously.  She no longer uses her handle at all on this forum because she has flamed and derided so many people that she is immediately attacked if she does post.

Just recently, on another thread, she has appealed to users of this forum to give out whatever personal information they may have about me in order to criminally harrass me by trying to use whatever information she could get to report it to my employer and get me fired from my position.  

Fortunately, she is so universally despised on this forum (and apparently in her life, according to some of her profesional contacts) that she had no takers on her inquiry.

My advice is to steer clear of this rude and abusive drunken sot.

More interesting still... :rofl:

Sure hope this pernicious little ottawan bitch rears her ugly head again soon.. ::bwahaha:: ::bwahaha2:: ::both::