Inside the head of a shithead parent

[TheWho]

Robert, THE WHO's round-and-round nonsense arguments are a lot like Sue Scheff's testimony in the WWASP vs PURE transcript when she is talking about a school she referred to for money: Red Rock Canyon Ranch.
Scheff was trying to "explain away the death" of a young girl who died at this facility, Katie Lank.
Scheff testifies: "First of all, Katie died at the hospital, she didn't die at the school."

Well, yes: technically Scheff is correct---this child was airlifted to the hospital where she died: But, this girl was killed at Red Rock Canyon Ranch.

The WHO, much like Sue Scheff--would argue this way, too.

Why do you bother with him, Robert?  He's like Sue Scheff---he cares nothing about children who died in these programs.

I am finished with the data collection.  Bob is just trying to find more data to add.  The parameters are clear.  I am not the one rejecting them.

[RobertBruce]

Yet three kids deaths so far you've claimed "don't count". This is of course after you changed your parameters from comparing "school safety" to "child safety in the public sector", and added about 4000 deaths to your original count refusing to differentiate between in school and out of school all as a means of portraying public schools as somehow more dangerous than TBS's when the data clearly shows everyone with even a degree of common sense otherwise. On top of that I asked you what the parameters were and you mentioned nothing about only TBS's being included, only after you got your ass handed to you (again) did you try and change the rules again. Now youre getting upset because once again it isnt going your way and youre out of excuses.

You remind me of an 8 year old Cindy, really. Youre cry baby attitude, and insistence on getting your way, and refusal to recognize the truth shows a serious lack of maturity on your part. Maybe its time you grow up a little Cindy.

[Anonymous]

You remind me of an 8 year old Cindy, really.

No insulting the kids.

Especially not on this forum.

[TheWho]

Yet three kids deaths so far you've claimed "don't count". This is of course after you changed your parameters from comparing "school safety" to "child safety in the public sector", and added about 4000 deaths to your original count refusing to differentiate between in school and out of school all as a means of portraying public schools as somehow more dangerous than TBS's when the data clearly shows everyone with even a degree of common sense otherwise. On top of that I asked you what the parameters were and you mentioned nothing about only TBS's being included, only after you got your ass handed to you (again) did you try and change the rules again. Now youre getting upset because once again it isnt going your way and youre out of excuses.

You remind me of an 8 year old Cindy, really. Youre cry baby attitude, and insistence on getting your way, and refusal to recognize the truth shows a serious lack of maturity on your part. Maybe its time you grow up a little Cindy.

Well if that is the way you see it, thats okay.  The parameters were clear and are clear.  I cant change a judges ruling to satisfy what you think, Bob.  I would like to...but if we did it for the ones you sent we would have to do the same thing in the public sector data supplied by the NCES.  Neither one of us is qualified to do that.  We have to work within the frame work that has been set up.  You can blame me for the rulings if you like.  But the data needs to stand and meet the criteria otherwise it cant be compared.

[TheWho]

Yet three kids deaths so far you've claimed "don't count". This is of course after you changed your parameters from comparing "school safety" to "child safety in the public sector", and added about 4000 deaths to your original count refusing to differentiate between in school and out of school all as a means of portraying public schools as somehow more dangerous than TBS's when the data clearly shows everyone with even a degree of common sense otherwise. On top of that I asked you what the parameters were and you mentioned nothing about only TBS's being included, only after you got your ass handed to you (again) did you try and change the rules again. Now youre getting upset because once again it isnt going your way and youre out of excuses.

You remind me of an 8 year old Cindy, really. Youre cry baby attitude, and insistence on getting your way, and refusal to recognize the truth shows a serious lack of maturity on your part. Maybe its time you grow up a little Cindy.

No.....


Here take a look again:

So I am simple comparing a child?s safety at a TBS (24 hours per day) vs not being at a TBS (24 hours per day)

We have this data:

July 1, 1999 thru June 2000  
School aged children

Outside a TBS:
There where 2,140 Homicides and 1,928 suicides
Inside a TBS
There where 0 Homicides and 2 suicides.

[RobertBruce]

Well if that is the way you see it, thats okay.

I know that's exactly what happened, I don't need your reassurance but thanks anyway.

The parameters were clear and are clear

You're right they were.

RobertBruce wrote:
Okay sounds great. What are the parameters?


Homicides or suicides between the time July 1, 1999 thru June 2000 occuring at a TBS

You didn't say resulting in a conviction, or was ruled as, you simply said was a homicide or suicide. That's exactly what you've been given and now when once again it doesnt go your way youre trying to change the rules. Sorry Cindy it doesnt work that way, again you didnt insist on convictions for the deaths in public schools, all that mattered were that the kids were dead.

I cant change a judges ruling to satisfy what you think, Bob. I would like to...but if we did it for the ones you sent we would have to do the same thing in the public sector data supplied by the NCES.

But again you didnt feel those rulings or convictions were neccesary to count the deaths in the public sector so either accept that, that criteria is not neccesary for private sector deaths, or throw out all the deaths on your list that did not result in being ruled as a homicide. Once again you cannot have it both ways Cindy.

Neither one of us is qualified to do that. We have to work within the frame work that has been set up. You can blame me for the rulings if you like. But the data needs to stand and meet the criteria otherwise it cant be compared.

Oh no I dont blame you as an apologist, youre so brainwashed you dont know what youre doing. You are right about one thing though the criteria needs to be the same for both sides, so either research all 2140 deaths and exclude any which did not result in a conviction as a homicide or accept that the rulings are not neccesary since we can already established that the kids in the private sector were killed by their care givers.

Let me know.

[RobertBruce]

We have this data:

July 1, 1999 thru June 2000
School aged children

Outside a TBS:
There where 2,140 Homicides and 1,928 suicides
Inside a TBS
There where 0 Homicides and 2 suicides.

From now on please change that post to "I have this data"

Youre the only one Cindy, the rest of us are smart enough to accept the truth.

Here's what we have so far:

Out of 52,000,000 public school kids 16 were killed in school

Translating to 1 out of every 3,250,000 kids being killed.

Out of those 52,000,000 6 committed suicide while in school.

Translating to 1 out of 8,666,667 kids killing themselves.

Of those same 52,000,000 kids 2140 were killed outside of school.

Translating to 1 out of every 24,300 kids being killed.

Of those same 52,000,000 public school kids 1928 kids committed suicide outside of school.

Translating to roughly 1 out of every 27,000 kids committing suicide.

Out of 30,000 kids in the  private theraputic sector so far we have 3 who were killed by staff members.

Translating to 1 out of every 10,000 kids being murdered by staff.

Of those same 30,000 kids 2 committed suicide.

Translating to 1 out of every 15,000 committing suicide.

That's what we have right now Cindy. You can have whatever you like, just understand no one else is buying it and youre dead wrong.

Not that, that's ever mattered to you before.

[Anonymous]

YAAAWWWWWWWWWNNNN



zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[TheWho]

No, wrong again Bob.....  these are all the accepted rulings by judges (not myself).


Here take a look again:

So I am simple comparing a child?s safety at a TBS (24 hours per day) vs not being at a TBS (24 hours per day)

We have this data:

July 1, 1999 thru June 2000  
School aged children

Outside a TBS:
There where 2,140 Homicides and 1,928 suicides
Inside a TBS
There where 0 Homicides and 2 suicides.

[Anonymous]

Cut it out!  Both of you!  Ya look like idiots.

Christ, get a fucking room already.

[Nihilanthic]

No, wrong again Bob.....  these are all the accepted rulings by judges (not myself).


Here take a look again:

So I am simple comparing a child?s safety at a TBS (24 hours per day) vs not being at a TBS (24 hours per day)

We have this data:

July 1, 1999 thru June 2000  
School aged children

Outside a TBS:
There where 2,140 Homicides and 1,928 suicides
Inside a TBS
There where 0 Homicides and 2 suicides.

And how many kids are in a TBS vs kids not in a TBS?

Sorry I cant find 1999-2000 statistics, but my point still stands.

There are 73,469,984 people under the age of 18 as of 2005. Thats a 1:34331.768 chance of being killed in homicide, 1:38106.838 chance of suicide.

Debs last estimate was about 20,000 kids in programs. Also, being killed in a program via restraint or negligence is not counted as homicide, so I'll just go by the two suicides. Thats a 1:10,000 chance of suicide.

So, uh, basically, you just demonstrated you're 3x more likely to kill yourself in a program than not in one.

CONGRATULATIONS.

EDIT:

I just checked wikipedia. The chance of suicide for a teenager is actually closer to 1:11764.705, which is about 1.5:100,000 higher than in a program assuming the 20,000 kids in programs figure Deborah was able to come up with.

It maybe low but it is still higher.

Now, if only neglect, restraints, lack of medical care and being pushed to the edge physically and restraints were counted with program deaths vs deaths due to homicide in schools.... we might get closer to comparing apples to apples.

[TheWho]

No, wrong again Bob.....  these are all the accepted rulings by judges (not myself).


Here take a look again:

So I am simple comparing a child?s safety at a TBS (24 hours per day) vs not being at a TBS (24 hours per day)

We have this data:

July 1, 1999 thru June 2000  
School aged children

Outside a TBS:
There where 2,140 Homicides and 1,928 suicides
Inside a TBS
There where 0 Homicides and 2 suicides.

And how many kids are in a TBS vs kids not in a TBS?

Sorry I cant find 1999-2000 statistics, but my point still stands.

There are 73,469,984 people under the age of 18 as of 2005. Thats a 1:34331.768 chance of being killed in homicide, 1:38106.838 chance of suicide.

Debs last estimate was about 20,000 kids in programs. Also, being killed in a program via restraint or negligence is not counted as homicide, so I'll just go by the two suicides. Thats a 1:10,000 chance of suicide.

So, uh, basically, you just demonstrated you're 3x more likely to kill yourself in a program than not in one.

CONGRATULATIONS.

EDIT:

I just checked wikipedia. The chance of suicide for a teenager is actually closer to 1:11764.705, which is about 1.5:100,000 higher than in a program assuming the 20,000 kids in programs figure Deborah was able to come up with.

It maybe low but it is still higher.

Now, if only neglect, restraints, lack of medical care and being pushed to the edge physically and restraints were counted with program deaths vs deaths due to homicide in schools.... we might get closer to comparing apples to apples.

Thanks Niles, I have been trying to get this thru to the knuckle head for hours.  Sometimes it takes an outside view to clarify things.  We need to use the same criteria the NCSE uses when determining Suicide and Homicides.

If we could get the NCES to capture this data (restraints, lack of medical care, being pushed over the edge etc.) in the public sector we could start to compare and I think that would be valuable info for parents to look at when weighing their decision.

As we compare more years (2001 to date) the picture should become a little clearer.

[Nihilanthic]

Why should they be put into a program until we know it's safe in the first place?

[TheWho]

Why should they be put into a program until we know it's safe in the first place?

They shouldnt.  This is data that can be developed over time to help parents determine the safest place for their kids (if they need to be placed outside the home).

[RobertBruce]

Because Cindy gets a check everytime he convinces a parent to put their kids into one.