aka sue scheff jr.

[Nihilanthic]

I think we're all just too damn cynical and hairtriggered here after the troll invasion and just the PURE/Whitmore shitstorm.

Since my post was anon Ill boil it down:
I'm perosnally sorry I didnt read it all the way through before making up my mind about what you're doing, Kathy. Im just too damn pessimistic for my own good.

Im also sorry I annoy you so much :lol:

I hope you do well with the investigations you're doing, and hopefully might turn people away from the bad programs.

[Anonymous]

On 2006-05-04 11:10:00, Kathy wrote:

"

On 2006-05-04 10:56:00, Anonymous wrote:


"Personally, I think Kathy should focus on web site design instead of instilling parents with a false sense of security about any given program ... like someone else we know ... and in fact, the same strategy used by most ed cons and parent-run referral services.  Read Maia's book which exposes this practice (FEAR MONGERING).





Bottom line is there are other ways to run a profitable website and-or earn money to pay for it's upkeep.





IMO, advocates who are against institutionalized child abuse are to be commended for holding the line -- not crossing over it.





 :smokin:

















"

How in the heck do you figure I am instilling parents with a false sense of security about any given program? That doesn't make any sense?  You obviously didn't read what I wrote about how just saying no I don't have information on a program can be misconstrued as the program is ok, which is what I do not want.  Your arguments don't make any sense!  



And as for your "bottom line" that their are other ways to run a profitable website and/or earn money to pay for it's upkeep, I'd like to hear your suggestions, cause I obviously haven't figured that out yet!!! Kathy"

Good grief, what do you think the purpose is of offering parents "customized" investigative program reports?  Think hard now.  

As for suggestions on other ways to make a living or just earn enough money to pay for the upkeep of your website, it seems to me you already came up with a good concept (web site consulting and design).  You obviously have the talent and potential to be very successful in this specialized field.

[Nihilanthic]

On 2006-05-04 11:11:00, Anonymous wrote:

"What makes Kathy Moya think she is qualified to dispense information to parents either for a fee or a "suggested donation"?  Is she an adolescent psychologist?  An adolescent behavioral healthcare expert?  This is ridiculous.  If you really want to help parents and kids, stop enabling the parents to put their child (and their bank account) in the hands of people who think they can tell heaven from hell.



 :flame:



"

You dont need a PhD to dig up facts, who-is-who, look for info, etc. You need a PHD to do diagnoses or pass your own opinions of those facts, though.

Ever wonder how undergrads write papers? They fill them full of cited sources, mostly those from people with their doctorates, until they earn the right to make their own opinion, basically.

Basically, if shes gonna say "well this person worked at such-and-such program, that was closed or investigated" or "they charge this much" or "they use these seminars and a level system and restraints and censored mail, no phonecalls for 3 months" (or whatever) thats not something you need a PhD to do. Anyone can put two and two together and realize any place Randal Hinton works at is going to be an utter hellhole, same for staffers coming out of CEDUs demise or old STRAIGHT people.

Yeah, its guilt by association, but shes not Jane Bond or anything. But, any idiot could look at the facts and make their own opinion. If it makes you feel better Ill go pull out a bunch of names with doctorates in psychology to say that isolation and coersive mind control is abusive and ineffective so any program that uses that can be called 'bad' by someone with the credentials, ok?

[Anonymous]

On 2006-05-04 11:14:00, Nihilanthic wrote:

"I think we're all just too damn cynical and hairtriggered here after the troll invasion and just the PURE/Whitmore shitstorm.



Since my post was anon Ill boil it down:

I'm perosnally sorry I didnt read it all the way through before making up my mind about what you're doing, Kathy. Im just too damn pessimistic for my own good.



Im also sorry I annoy you so much :grin:

[Anonymous]

On 2006-05-04 11:22:00, Nihilanthic wrote:

"

On 2006-05-04 11:11:00, Anonymous wrote:


"What makes Kathy Moya think she is qualified to dispense information to parents either for a fee or a "suggested donation"?  Is she an adolescent psychologist?  An adolescent behavioral healthcare expert?  This is ridiculous.  If you really want to help parents and kids, stop enabling the parents to put their child (and their bank account) in the hands of people who think they can tell heaven from hell.





 :flame:





"

You dont need a PhD to dig up facts, who-is-who, look for info, etc. You need a PHD to do diagnoses or pass your own opinions of those facts, though.



Ever wonder how undergrads write papers? They fill them full of cited sources, mostly those from people with their doctorates, until they earn the right to make their own opinion, basically.



Basically, if shes gonna say "well this person worked at such-and-such program, that was closed or investigated" or "they charge this much" or "they use these seminars and a level system and restraints and censored mail, no phonecalls for 3 months" (or whatever) thats not something you need a PhD to do. Anyone can put two and two together and realize any place Randal Hinton works at is going to be an utter hellhole, same for staffers coming out of CEDUs demise or old STRAIGHT people.



Yeah, its guilt by association, but shes not Jane Bond or anything. But, any idiot could look at the facts and make their own opinion. If it makes you feel better Ill go pull out a bunch of names with doctorates in psychology to say that isolation and coersive mind control is abusive and ineffective so any program that uses that can be called 'bad' by someone with the credentials, ok?"

I get what you are saying, but respecfully disagree.  I'd much rather see children have the right to due process before being "referred" into ANY FUCKING PROGRAM.  It's time for people to stop preying upon kids as a cash crop.

 :idea:

[Nihilanthic]

Dude, I try to NOT rely too much on intution and emotions. We all know how that itself is manipulated to get genuinely concerned, but stoopid (or just way too scared) parents to sign off their offspring.

If shes not referring, but rather just answering questions about one specific place, thats not doing any more harm than if someone asked me about a place and I pulled info from Wes's site, ISAC, her site, here (anon anon) and whatever else I found, now is it?

[Nihilanthic]

I get what you are saying, but respecfully disagree. I'd much rather see children have the right to due process before being "referred" into ANY FUCKING PROGRAM. It's time for people to stop preying upon kids as a cash crop.

Shes not referring!! Shes just digging up the facts she can find an sharing them with the parents, not saying its good or bad.

Now, yes, youre right - telling them that the kid actually has to have something wrong, and has to find a place to actually provide therapy is part of what needs to be done, and Im pretty sure she is. If not, well, ask her.

I also agree that explaining that programs arent therapy, they never said they were (many say theyre not, actually), and that behavior modification is abusive is probably a good idea, but most people dont get how a program could be bad, even without the raps/seminars and pain-compliance-restraint/beatings. Someone should do that.

Its not a therapetuic thing, and it doesnt fix any  real issues, it just breaks someone down to make them behave, and it fucks them up in the process. Yeah, someone should be saying that, and we all know this by now. But, again, if shes just digging up the dirt on a program that someones asking about, is that so wrong?

Why not just suggest she do what I stated above along with whatever she digs up? Like, basically, have a program disclaimer?

[Anonymous]

On 2006-05-04 11:33:00, Nihilanthic wrote:

"Dude, I try to NOT rely too much on intution and emotions. We all know how that itself is manipulated to get genuinely concerned, but stoopid (or just way too scared) parents to sign off their offspring.



If shes not referring, but rather just answering questions about one specific place, thats not doing any more harm than if someone asked me about a place and I pulled info from Wes's site, ISAC, her site, here (anon anon) and whatever else I found, now is it?

"

What is so hard to understand here Niles? Go re-visit PURE's (or any other so-called parent awareness website) and read their "mission" then come back and tell me what the difference is.

Thanks!

[Anonymous]

On 2006-05-04 11:37:00, Nihilanthic wrote:

"

I get what you are saying, but respecfully disagree. I'd much rather see children have the right to due process before being "referred" into ANY FUCKING PROGRAM. It's time for people to stop preying upon kids as a cash crop.

Shes not referring!! Shes just digging up the facts she can find an sharing them with the parents, not saying its good or bad.



Now, yes, youre right - telling them that the kid actually has to have something wrong, and has to find a place to actually provide therapy is part of what needs to be done, and Im pretty sure she is. If not, well, ask her.



I also agree that explaining that programs arent therapy, they never said they were (many say theyre not, actually), and that behavior modification is abusive is probably a good idea, but most people dont get how a program could be bad, even without the raps/seminars and pain-compliance-restraint/beatings. Someone should do that.



Its not a therapetuic thing, and it doesnt fix any  real issues, it just breaks someone down to make them behave, and it fucks them up in the process. Yeah, someone should be saying that, and we all know this by now. But, again, if shes just digging up the dirt on a program that someones asking about, is that so wrong?



Why not just suggest she do what I stated above along with whatever she digs up? Like, basically, have a program disclaimer?"

Disclaimer?  You have GOT to be kidding?  Disclaimers are designed to protect the seller, not the buyer (the parent and child).

Christ, you really are losing it Niles.  Oh well, I guess it was bound to happen.  Soon there will be no true advocates left.

 :eek:

[Kathy]

True, it is more responsible feedback, specificity would be even better, I'm open to other ways of making the site pay for itself, just tell me how (directed at the anonymous poster).  

Up front I tell parents that they've heard the sales pitches from the programs and that my reports are not with out bias.  I look for all the negative aspects I can find, so that the parents have both the positive sides from the programs' sales pitches and then the negative side from my research, and facts and studies and stats to back up that research.  

Although I would love to have any parent believe me when I said, "just say NO!" to all programs, I doubt that would work, just as Nancy Reagan's "just say NO!" to drugs, not only didn't work, but perhaps made drugs even more appealing to kids.  Why would some parent just take me for my word when I say, "Just Say NO!" We aren't talking about idiots here.  We are talking about highly intelligent and educated adults.  They want to hear and see hard evidence as to why a particular program may not be as effective as the sales pitch says it is.  

Put in short form, Dysfuntion's quote sums it up, "you should provide a report and even if it reveals no overt abuse", debunking the myth of therapy in the "therapeutic model"-- Not to mention the deceitful marketing practices and brainwashing etc., that takes place in all programs.  Along with adding that any program that "counsels" a group of live-in kids, is bound to end in abuse. Nobody seems to remember the Stanford Prison Experiment that shows how even the most well intentioned person, put into those types of circumstances can act in an evil manner.  

That is why this experiment has been a part of my other sites, but I haven't had the time to get it up on the new server.

Personally, I have not found one program out there that is significantly different from any of the others, they all go against the grain of ethics in any therapy.  
 
Therefore, there is absolutely NO WAY, I'm providing anyone a false sense of security about a program. I don't even understand how you can deduce that from what I have written (unless of course, I typed something wrong with all the typos I've been making today. :wink:

[Anonymous]

On 2006-05-04 11:33:00, Nihilanthic wrote:

"Dude, I try to NOT rely too much on intution and emotions. We all know how that itself is manipulated to get genuinely concerned, but stoopid (or just way too scared) parents to sign off their offspring.



If shes not referring, but rather just answering questions about one specific place, thats not doing any more harm than if someone asked me about a place and I pulled info from Wes's site, ISAC, her site, here (anon anon) and whatever else I found, now is it?

"

Newsflash:  PURE doesn't refer either.  They just recommend programs based on their "research" and of course, well known bias against a certain organization.

 :roll:

[Nihilanthic]

Its not just grain of ethics in therapy! There have been studies saying its specifically INEFFECTIVE.

Well, that and in 25-30 years of operation the entire industry simply cant prove it actually works at all. Thats very damning in and of itself.

Anywho, sorry for the squabble before. We cool now?  :wave:

I really would like to have this resolved before I go take my final so its not on my mind, lol.

[Nihilanthic]

On 2006-05-04 11:43:00, Anonymous wrote:

"

On 2006-05-04 11:33:00, Nihilanthic wrote:


"Dude, I try to NOT rely too much on intution and emotions. We all know how that itself is manipulated to get genuinely concerned, but stoopid (or just way too scared) parents to sign off their offspring.





If shes not referring, but rather just answering questions about one specific place, thats not doing any more harm than if someone asked me about a place and I pulled info from Wes's site, ISAC, her site, here (anon anon) and whatever else I found, now is it?


"

Newsflash:  PURE doesn't refer either.  They just recommend programs based on their "research" and of course, well known bias against a certain organization.



 :roll:



"

Ok, so you want transparency? Hey Kathy, why not give us some transparency?

[Anonymous]

On 2006-05-04 11:45:00, Nihilanthic wrote:

"

On 2006-05-04 11:43:00, Anonymous wrote:


"

On 2006-05-04 11:33:00, Nihilanthic wrote:



"Dude, I try to NOT rely too much on intution and emotions. We all know how that itself is manipulated to get genuinely concerned, but stoopid (or just way too scared) parents to sign off their offspring.







If shes not referring, but rather just answering questions about one specific place, thats not doing any more harm than if someone asked me about a place and I pulled info from Wes's site, ISAC, her site, here (anon anon) and whatever else I found, now is it?



"

Newsflash:  PURE doesn't refer either.  They just recommend programs based on their "research" and of course, well known bias against a certain organization.





 :nworthy:

[Anonymous]

Niles, you were right the first go-round.
This seling investigative reports to parents is a money-making scheme and it is wrong.

It's exactly what Sue Scheff does: she refers/suggests/leads---CALL IT WHATEVER YOU WANT---parents to "safer, kinder, gentler" programs than those KNOWN TO BE ABUSIVE THAT SHE HATES, and she makes BIG MONEY DOING IT.
There's no difference here.
Kathy is doing the same thing: weeding out the abusive programs, and THEN the parents will enroll their kid in whatever program is not on her LITTLE INVESTIGATIVE LIST rated as "bad."
Give me a break.