MIA

[ajax13]

Anybody have any idea why AARC produced only 100 grads in 5.5 years?  The study stated that in this period only 15 clients did not complete the program.  With 30 to 36 clients at any given time, each spending, according to AARC, an average of one year in treatment, then 165 to 198 clients should have gone through AARC in this period.  What gives?

[TheWho]

Anybody have any idea why AARC produced only 100 grads in 5.5 years?  The study stated that in this period only 15 clients did not complete the program.  With 30 to 36 clients at any given time, each spending, according to AARC, an average of one year in treatment, then 165 to 198 clients should have gone through AARC in this period.  What gives?

These school populations tend to fluctuate over time.  I would be willing to bet the number of kids they had in 1992 is not the same as they have today or the same they had in 2003 which may account for the difference. 

I didnt see the 30 - 36 client number in the report, where did you pick that number up ajax13?



...

[ajax13]

The same place you could if you put some time into learning some facts about this phenomenon before puking up your sentiment-based, misinformed and deceptive comments.

[TheWho]

The same place you could if you put some time into learning some facts about this phenomenon before puking up your sentiment-based, misinformed and deceptive comments.

Sorry this discussion angers you so much.  I am trying to understand your point of view.



...

[Anonymous]

The same place you could if you put some time into learning some facts about this phenomenon before puking up your sentiment-based, misinformed and deceptive comments.

Sorry this discussion angers you so much.  I am trying to understand your point of view.



...

He is trying to fondle your junk.

[Anonymous]

The same place you could if you put some time into learning some facts about this phenomenon before puking up your sentiment-based, misinformed and deceptive comments.

Sorry this discussion angers you so much.  I am trying to understand your point of view.
...

• 
  Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can't do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how "sensitive they are to criticism"

Twenty-Five Ways To Suppress Truth: The Rules of Disinformation


by H. Michael Sweeney

[TheWho]

The same place you could if you put some time into learning some facts about this phenomenon before puking up your sentiment-based, misinformed and deceptive comments.

Sorry this discussion angers you so much.  I am trying to understand your point of view.
...

• 
  Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can't do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how "sensitive they are to criticism"

Twenty-Five Ways To Suppress Truth: The Rules of Disinformation


by H. Michael Sweeney

I don’t think this is totally true, TOEJAM.  In defense of Ajax13, I believe he was attacking AARC people for being overweight or trying to discredit Vause by attacking his education due to frustration and anger over his wifes treatment there.  I don’t think these taunts and chides were designed to solicit a response from them because they are not posting here (at least not to my knowledge).  As far as avoiding the discussion, I think this may be partially true.  Based on previous discussion I believe it is easier for Ajax13 to attack the research people then to try to understand the study results because the outcome is not what he would like to see.  I think he was hoping for a more negative outcome to help support his personal views.  As far as ajax13 being sensitive to criticism I really wouldn’t know the answer to that, I dont know him/her that well, maybe others do.




...

[ajax13]

I am truly desperate to have my point of view understood by you, Who.  You are so very important to me, and I hope to all readers of this forum.  I lie awake at night now praying that you will understand my point of view. 

[Anonymous]

ajax: until YOU can substantiate your credentials in critiquing evaluation and addiction research, NO One should bother to discuss the research with you. Your questions and implications indicate you do not have a clue about how evaluation research can be conducted for on adolescent treatment population of this type and that you have  no training in understanding the literature in this area. Try as you might to appear that you know what you are talking about, anyone with any education would not bother to engage . . . arguing with an idiot only leads to one being taken DOWN to their level to be beaten by experience - ie. idiot discussion with an idiot!

[Anonymous]

ajax: until YOU can substantiate your credentials in critiquing evaluation and addiction research, NO One should bother to discuss the research with you. Your questions and implications indicate you do not have a clue about how evaluation research can be conducted for on adolescent treatment population of this type and that you have  no training in understanding the literature in this area. Try as you might to appear that you know what you are talking about, anyone with any education would not bother to engage . . . arguing with an idiot only leads to one being taken DOWN to their level to be beaten by experience - ie. idiot discussion with an idiot!

The parasite is following the troll bible.  Trolls will:

Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the
"play dumb" rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in
public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the
opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something
which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon). In order to
completely avoid discussing issues may require you to categorically deny and be critical
of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that
statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance

Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority and present
your argument with enough "jargon" and "minutia" to illustrate you are "one who
knows", and simply say it isn't so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely
why or citing sources


They never actually discuss issues head on or provide constructive input, generally
avoiding citation of references or credentials. Rather, they merely imply this, that, and the
other. Virtually everything about their presentation implies their authority and expert
knowledge in the matter without any further justification for credibility.


They tend to pick and choose their opponents carefully, either applying the hit-and-run
approach against mere commentators supportive of opponents, or focusing heavier
attacks on key opponents who are known to directly address issues. Should a
commentator become argumentative with any success, the focus will shift to include the
commentator as well.



Axis, a successful commentator with a strong argument draws these assholes like young boys draw priests. 

[Anonymous]

addendum: and the idiots travel in herds  :ftard:
Vincent has a friend, thanks belial for your help in pointing out 'axis"'s(ajax/vincent) methods

[Anonymous]

AXIS=Who/Gookin/CCM trolls

Ajax is the commentator.

You are one of the cited assholes.

[Anonymous]

oh dear, my hurt little feelins  

[TheWho]

Anybody have any idea why AARC produced only 100 grads in 5.5 years?  The study stated that in this period only 15 clients did not complete the program.  With 30 to 36 clients at any given time, each spending, according to AARC, an average of one year in treatment, then 165 to 198 clients should have gone through AARC in this period.  What gives?

These school populations tend to fluctuate over time.  I would be willing to bet the number of kids they had in 1992 is not the same as they have today or the same they had in 2003 which may account for the difference. 

I didnt see the 30 - 36 client number in the report, where did you pick that number up ajax13?



...

The schools graduation classes and enrollments do fluctuate!!  The 30-36 number is present day attendance.  Late 90's was more like 18 - 24 at any given time.  As the word got out on their successes the school has increased enrollment by over 90% in the past decade.  So 100 students within that time period would be accurate.

[Anonymous]

correct, BiCentennial!
vincent is trying to find any little nuance that does not compute  and hence makes the AARC review and Vause a "big biased lie/liar"in his un-educated mind. So because he lacks any research training he will flip from making a point about whether Vause played on the Swift Current Broncos in the 1970s to how many clients were in AARC at any given time. He thinks he is aware of the day-to-day operations of AARC  (i.e."With 30 to 36 clients at any given time, each spending, according to AARC, an average of one year in treatment, then 165 to 198 clients should have gone through AARC in this period") and how evaluation could be conducted on this sort of population.
 Vince buddy, you crack me up!!  RoFLMAO