A START???

[Anonymous]

Can somone sum up who/what this group is all about?  It looks to me like they may be playing a role in the hearings and I would like to know who they are and what their position is on the key issues.  I already know they are somehow connected to Cafety but I do not see any other advocacy groups aligned with them and suspect that may have to do with serious differences of opinion and/or objectives.

In looking at Cafety's website, it seems Cafety has helped to collect surveys which were commissioned by A Start.  Is that correct?   If so, that seems like a good thing but how are the results of this survey going to impact the hearings (if used)?  Will they help to tilt the scales in favor of "regulating" a system of care that allows children to be forced into treatment regardless of whether they need it or not?

[ZenAgent]

A START shares a couple of members with CAFETY, and I'm not sure A START is pleased with the connections CAFETY maintains.  There does seem to be a rift growing between the two groups.

http://astart.fmhi.usf.edu/

I'm afraid A START's reliance on CAFETY to gather stories was a mistake.  Interest in CAFETY dropped off when their connections to the industry were discovered.  Sad, really, I think Kat Whitehead is great.  Not sure about the rest of that lot.

[Anonymous]

For those new to this forum, could someone please post information about CAFETY and their agenda. In looking at their website, they seem to be about exposing and stopping abuse in the industry, but it's hard to know what special interest groups they have aligned themselves with. Many people look at fornits as a special interest group, and I have even seen the fornits folks classified as a cult. So... has CAFETY just had a falling out with regulars here, or do they have a real hidden agenda, like some other purely sneaky orgs? ditto ASTART, what's up with them, other than they share some members with CAFETY?

Inquiring minds want to know. If we need to expose em, we need to know.

[Deborah]

ASTART and my personal concerns
http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?p=286592#286592

For the record, I completed an ASTART questionaire a long time ago. It wasn't through Cafety.

The info collected has already been used for good, to contridict the bs presented to the APA convention
http://apinto.blog.usf.edu/category/spe ... -programs/
 by Ellen Behrens with her biased 'study'.
http://wwf.fornits.com/viewtopic.php?p=215887#215887

It remains to be seen what impact it will have with the committee.

Huffine wrote a good piece on Coercive Treatment
http://cafety.org/index.php?option=com_ ... &Itemid=35

[ZenAgent]

My family is very grateful for A START's help, especially Dr. Huffine and a child advocate/A START member who would probably like to remain anonymous.  They're both friends of the family - which made the discovery about CAFETY's associations very difficult.  It does seem to be A START's opinion that any connection to CAICA is unacceptable, but I can't speak for them too much.  A START is made up of mental health care professionals, educators, and advocates.  I know that my favorite A START advocate claims not to be "computer savvy", and I think most A START members don't have the time to make sure a group like CAFETY doesn't have connections that could compromise their neutrality.  It's a bigger problem than the CAFETY folks tried to play it off as.

I have seen A START become more "militant", for lack of a better word, but given the positions the members hold and the fact they stuck their necks out by signing on with A START, they keep a moderate position and don't encourage snarling catfights.  Dr. Huffine chastised me for coming on a bit heavy with the accusations and angry insults.  In my defense - at least I kept it public.  I got email and PM's from CAFETY members quite different in tone and content from what they posted on their forum.  The messages were sent as PM's and I kept them private.  Can't say the same for some CAFETY members.

[Anonymous]

I got email and PM's from CAFETY members quite different in tone and content from what they posted on their forum.

Aren't we all glad we let it all hang out on Fornits?

[Che Gookin]

I've been wishy washy about Astart for awhile now. On one hand I'd like to see em go down in flames and on the other hand I've been hoping they would see the light and create a distance between themselves and Cafarty.

Again as I said in PM my offer to give the Astart people a weekend of Waygookin programmie fun still stands. I believe that is the only way they will ever really understand what the reality of it all is.

Actually I ought to consider enlarging that idea. Make it an open weekend for any media rep, shrink, advocate, or what not who wants to come be tormented by myself for 3 days.

Mind you it lacks that time aspect of spending month after month in a program, but just a mere taste of it may well be enlightening.

Hopefully astart is going down the right path. I think it would be very helpful to have some professionals weighing in on this situation.

[ZenAgent]

I'm trying to introduce them to the concept that a solid goon-hand laid with authority on some out-of-pocket industry ho's head can cause a change in the programees world view.  A START will never get into nasty guerrilla fighting, which is okay.  Let A START get the industry's attention with the niceties of politics and distract the fools - we'll sneak up from behind and garrote the bastards, figuratively speaking.  Or not.  Depending on who's back we get a shot at...  

WW, who is this CCM girl1989 and why does she want to see me "face-to-face" in my "neck of the woods"?  She's not Izzy or Sue, I hope.

[Che Gookin]

CCM Girl is went through a wwasp programme and Heritage RTC after that for most of her early childhood. I used to give her alot of crap, but after awhile I sat back a bit and really looked at who was flaming her. I noticed that the people who should be flaming her, long term programme survivors, weren't all that actively into attacking her or her credibility.

It occured to me that this was probably for a reason and it wasn't to much longer before one of them explained to me that how can they blame CCM girl for her views about Heritage when the sole blame for her incarceration should be laid at her parent's feet?

After this gem I decided to leave her alone. She is a bit overly dramatic at times, but she will not back down from her convictions that her time at Heritage was a good thing for her. I've wondered what was going on at home that made a placement at an RTC more desirable.

Personally the approach I take with her is to ignore her in public and every now and then send her the rare private message.  I don't believe she is an industry shill and I'm certain the repeated attacks on her are destined to fail. What is a wiser policy is to simply illustrate to her how the facility she once knew has changed to something far more different today without all the hue, cry, and fury.

After all.. why repeat the programme on the internet?

[psy]

For those new to this forum, could someone please post information about CAFETY and their agenda. In looking at their website, they seem to be about exposing and stopping abuse in the industry, but it's hard to know what special interest groups they have aligned themselves with. Many people look at fornits as a special interest group, and I have even seen the fornits folks classified as a cult.

1. Milieu Control (communications, etc)
    Fornits, perhaps more than any other place on the web anywhere does NOT control communication in any way whatsoever.  Anybody is free to post anything they like.
2. Mystical Manipulation
    OOGA booga. You are on this site becuase GOD has brought you to this site...
3. Demand for purity.
    Although from a certain perspective, many on fornits have a "black and white" viewpoint, it is in no way enforced on others.
4. Cult of Confession
    Nobody is required to disclose anything, including their identity...


etc...

I could go on and on but simply but, Fornits is simply an open discussion forum of which topics usually relate to the Troubled Teen Industry.  The only people I might know who would compare Fornits to cult are Anne S. Hall (AKA. An Ass Hole, AKA. Anne From Minessota), Mose from Struggling Teens, or perhaps Isabelle Zehnder... and since Sue Scheff has already called us terrorists, i wouldn't put it past her either.

So... has CAFETY just had a falling out with regulars here, or do they have a real hidden agenda, like some other purely sneaky orgs? ditto ASTART, what's up with them, other than they share some members with CAFETY?

Inquiring minds want to know. If we need to expose em, we need to know.

It was a hot topic a month or so ago.  Go look up posts by "blombro".  It's a complicated and long story.  Somebody else care to explain?

[Che Gookin]

It was a hot topic a month or so ago. Go look up posts by "blombro". It's a complicated and long story. Somebody else care to explain?

no not really.. bleh...

[ZenAgent]

For those new to this forum, could someone please post information about CAFETY and their agenda. In looking at their website, they seem to be about exposing and stopping abuse in the industry, but it's hard to know what special interest groups they have aligned themselves with. Many people look at fornits as a special interest group, and I have even seen the fornits folks classified as a cult.

1. Milieu Control (communications, etc)
    Fornits, perhaps more than any other place on the web anywhere does NOT control communication in any way whatsoever.  Anybody is free to post anything they like.
2. Mystical Manipulation
    OOGA booga. You are on this site becuase GOD has brought you to this site...
3. Demand for purity.
    Although from a certain perspective, many on fornits have a "black and white" viewpoint, it is in no way enforced on others.
4. Cult of Confession
    Nobody is required to disclose anything, including their identity...

Um...you're not going to tell the poster about that ugly Baphomet head with two faces, or the Sacred Rites and Signs of the Initiated Fornitscators, 33rd degree?

It was a hot topic a month or so ago.  Go look up posts by "blombro".  It's a complicated and long story.  Somebody else care to explain?

He called Fornits a "cult", so we offered him up to The Great Horned One of the Pit during the solstice sacrifice.  No wait, maybe it was the 4th of July Fornits Family Fun Picnic & Dark Invocation of the Beast...I think we made him carry the beer cooler all day, it was damn heavy.

[ZenAgent]

I'm sick of it, too, but some anon posted this recently, it kind of tells the story.  Got the outcome right, anyway.

This board is overflowing with completely insane rumor and nasty innuendo, such as suggestions that Miller is co-opted and that some extremely dedicated activists who have never had industry ties have been co-opted (or somehow were responsible for a delay in the hearings that was actually very short and completely due to other factors) and with completely uninformed speculation about the intent of Miller vis a vis survivors that has no basis in reality.

There is *strategy* to legislation and legislative hearings-- and one of the smart kinds of strategy is not to play your whole hand all at once.  One hearing is not the whole deal.  Those who testify now are probably not the only ones who will have the opportunity.

Second, the existing version of the bill was written while the Republicans controlled Congress as a compromise.  here's a hint: the Republicans no longer control Congress. NATSAP is scared because they know Miller wants *federal* regulation and only deferred to the states because his party was not in power.

And the GAO is not stupid.  Any look at their prior investigations of industries and scientific claims that the government would have preferred to suppress suggests that they don't fall for nonsense.

Please stop the infighting and do not judge what is going on until you actually know the facts from the inside.

Of course, the actual legislation may ultimately disappoint as with everything in government-- but people here have some really bizarre ideas that have serious potential to hinder their chances of effectively promoting their own cause.

*YAWN*...you finished, CAFETY-ite?  "Infighting" is a word you guys kick around a lot, but you aren't "in" - You've got a board member who's tight with Isabelle Zehnder and her business associate, Sue Scheff.  The guy would not end his involvement with CAICA and became defensive when his ego got a boot print on it.  CAFETY should have ejected him, but maintained an icy silence, despite "discussions" in private.  What was the final decision?  At this point, no one cares.

Forntis is a "cult" anyway, according to a CAFETY board member.  At that point it became clear CAFETY was like a beast thrown in a sawdust pit to fight for its life.  CAFETY became a liability and an embarrassment to organizations they worked with - organizations that expected CAFETY to be wise in creating it's own affiliations.  CAFETY let a lot of people down, go to the CAFETY site and check out an internet ghost town.  Discredited, disrespected, viewed as spineless whiners who became nasty and bitchy when they couldn't offer an explanation or a corrective action.

A START seems unaware of CAFETY's near total lack of supporters - I guess it's becoming clear enough, since the Wiki request for survivor stories is getting an icy response.  One CAFETY board member is probably doing the same whining he did on their forum - "Isn't anyone going to RESPOND to this?"  
 
I hope people are sending their stories in directly and bypassing the CAFETY middle-man.  A middle-man is all CAFETY was, even when the group mattered.  They're still stuck in the middle, dead in the water, incapable of moving forward or backward...whining, pleading, arrogantly demanding that everyone jump back on the boat and row for them.

[Che Gookin]

Honestly the only legislation I'd support anymore would be two different items.

1st a law making it a crime to send your children to an abusive program.

2nd a Civil rights amendment for children giving them due process rights.

All the rest bores me and strikes me as a collosal waste of time and effort.

[Anonymous]

Problem is then you'd have to have a legal definition of abusive.

Your 2nd point is much better -- give kids civil rights and due process, and the rest will take care of itself the same way it does for adults.

The state of Washington is a good model, where minors 13 and older have specific legal rights to accept or deny treatment, and cannot be committed to a residential facility without due process, representation and a court judgement.