Every anti-program project, protest or idea has failed. Why?

[TheWho]

Show me those 20 for every 1. Statements written inside the program don't count. Show me 20 people who have been out of a program discussed here for several years who still think it saved their lives (or every one who has been harmed). There is nothing preventing those people from posting here. The only reason why most of the stories on this site are negative in regards to a specific program is because most of the experiences were negative. There is nobody moderating the dialogue here and preventing positive experiences from being talked about. If over 95% of people had positive experiences in the programs discussed here as you claim, this site would be overflowing with praise.

Actually, I need to disagree here, when there is failure people search for reasons why it failed more often then the successful ones search for why it was successful. Its human nature.   If you had a bad experience with a dentist or cosmetic procedure you are very motivated to get out there and rattle some cages because you are pissed.  The ones who had experienced successful procedures are off looking good and feeling good about themselves.  How many times have you called Wal-Mart to tell them your Television is working  great?  Now how motivated would you be to call if you got your set home and it didn’t work?

Look at PETA,SPCA they focus mostly on all the negative experiences that animals are subjected to.  They are targeting a very small minority.  Most people treat animals very well and I dont think I could name one industry which is dedicated to just talking about the positive side of animal treatment.  Very little money is used to look at the positive side of how people treat their animals.  The reason is that this is the norm.  The same with the Struggling teen industry.  The norm is that kids get the help they need and if something goes wrong with a few of them then forums are created, like this one,to discuss it.

[RobertBruce]

Whooter stay out of this conversation, you have nothing to add as you have never experienced the negative side of this industry or the imaginary postive side. You brought up this point years ago and I proved to you then that your point was invalid. This industry isnt creating a product, there are no exchanges or rain checks, a child being coerced, abused, and brainwashed is not the same thing as a faulty microwave. If that wasnt enough I showed you where the majority of rape victims do not report having been attacked, its human nature to often want to simply try and forget about horrific things that are done to you on an individual basis.


To the OP my question remains; Why do you believe the programs that have failed did so? Also, would you consider getting a username. It makes communication much easier.  :soapbox:

[try another castle]

tl;dr

[Anonymous]

:roflmao:  :roflmao:  :roflmao:  :roflmao:  :roflmao:  

OP has a very deep-seated need to argue these points!

Btw, I found this Freudian slip to be quite telling (OP/Guest responding to Psy):

"Why would me asking questions keep people from posting here? Questions generate answers, one of which was yours. I encouraged you to post. Had I not posted, you would of not posted. You see? I created your post by asking a question."[/list]

Not a slip. I created your post too. If my original posts did not exist, you would have nothing to respond to. I created them. I created all the posts in response to my ideas and questions, psy's and yours not included.

"Inspiration," "instigation," "provocation," etc. ... perhaps. But "creation?" Only an arrogant fool, and/or someone with a poor grasp of the English language, would claim that.

  :roflmao:

[TheWho]

Show me those 20 for every 1. Statements written inside the program don't count. Show me 20 people who have been out of a program discussed here for several years who still think it saved their lives (or every one who has been harmed). There is nothing preventing those people from posting here. The only reason why most of the stories on this site are negative in regards to a specific program is because most of the experiences were negative. There is nobody moderating the dialogue here and preventing positive experiences from being talked about. If over 95% of people had positive experiences in the programs discussed here as you claim, this site would be overflowing with praise.

Actually, I need to disagree here, when there is failure people search for reasons why it failed more often then the successful ones search for why it was successful. Its human nature.   If you had a bad experience with a dentist or cosmetic procedure you are very motivated to get out there and rattle some cages because you are pissed.  The ones who had experienced successful procedures are off looking good and feeling good about themselves.  How many times have you called Wal-Mart to tell them your Television is working  great?  Now how motivated would you be to call if you got your set home and it didn’t work?

Look at PETA,SPCA they focus mostly on all the negative experiences that animals are subjected to.  They are targeting a very small minority.  Most people treat animals very well and I dont think I could name one industry which is dedicated to just talking about the positive side of animal treatment.  Very little money is used to look at the positive side of how people treat their animals.  The reason is that this is the norm.  The same with the Struggling teen industry.  The norm is that kids get the help they need and if something goes wrong with a few of them then forums are created, like this one,to discuss it.

Interesting point, but the reason there is very little money spent on the positive side is that is not the side that needs changing.  PETA is focusing on the side that needs to change.  I agree with you that it is a small piece compared with the number of people who treat their animals well.  The same can be said with the teen enslavement industry.  We focus on the negative because we want change in that area.  Like you said the majority of the kids may be helped and you may be right, but there are no statistics to support that. It wouldnt matter anyway, even if one kid is abused wouldnt you want to prevent that?

[try another castle]

Oh wow, missed this..

Look at PETA,SPCA they focus mostly on all the negative experiences that animals are subjected to.

lol. You should have your anus smoked for comparing PETA to SPCA.  PETA = crazy, self-important hippies who spend their funding on gimmicky ad campaigns instead of actually helping animals, and actually deserve a big fat syringe full of the "pink juice of death" themselves. SPCA = animal rescue organization that seeks to adopt strays and rescues out, and works closely with local animal care and control.

They are targeting a very small minority. Most people treat animals very well

Is that the same as Bill O'Retard's "some say" rule?  most people = people who I know who have pets.. which really isnt most people.. that's a bit of people. I have no idea whether most people treat pets well, and also have no idea on how something like that would be measured, unless someone is convicted for animal abuse and has a record. Do you have access to such records?

Anyway, I find this to be far more interesting than whatever the original topic was.

[TheWho]

Dam those southern California women who have no reason to ever wear a fur coat or any coat.  What do they have to give up? They have unfulfilling home lives with their husbands so they get naked and draw stripes on themselves and sit in cages all day to get the attention they would like to get at home.  Most of them could care less about fur coats because it never gets below 70 degrees in their area of the country.  Put them up in Alaska for a few weeks and I am sure they would suffocate a Walrus with their bare hands to build a coat.  They are the most useless organization I have ever seen.  What hypocrites.

[Anonymous]

Whooter stay out of this conversation, you have nothing to add as you have never experienced the negative side of this industry or the imaginary postive side. You brought up this point years ago and I proved to you then that your point was invalid. This industry isnt creating a product, there are no exchanges or rain checks, a child being coerced, abused, and brainwashed is not the same thing as a faulty microwave. If that wasnt enough I showed you where the majority of rape victims do not report having been attacked, its human nature to often want to simply try and forget about horrific things that are done to you on an individual basis.


To the OP my question remains; Why do you believe the programs that have failed did so? Also, would you consider getting a username. It makes communication much easier.  :soapbox:

Robert Bruce,

Were you involved in the "negative side" of the industry?  Please discuss in detail.

[Anonymous]

It wouldn't be the first program survivor on fornits who did their fair share of abusing.

[seamus]

funny, how an already weak PFC,went bu-bye,once some 'program vets' started telling some truth to parents.Funny how obvious fact erodes bullshit.
See its one thing to rant on& on in a forum,protesting is the next step up,and yet others in a more,less obvious way,find "access" to parents and sow seeds of doubt and instead of a rant/rave,do things in a more deliberate,less obvious way.    


   hmm.......what would miller newton do??

[RobertBruce]

OP you still havent answered the question.

[Anonymous]

Bruce, you post this on every thread. What was the question?

[RobertBruce]

If you aren't the OP then the question wasn't directed towards you anyway, so why do you care? If you are its on the bottom of page 2. So then what's your answer?

[Anonymous]

You haven't achieved anything. Parents can still choose to send their kids wherever they want. No regulation has been passed, which means, at best, you are asking parents to pwitty pwease don't send your kid to the mean progwam that hurt me. What has worked, is the free market. Parents don't pay money to have their kids treated badly, they want them to be helped, treated and saved. Better programs attract these parents, and older programs fall. You are attributing the natural evolution of the industry as your own personal achievement. I'm calling bullshit on that.

Why is it you personally think those other programs failed?

If you aren't the OP then the question wasn't directed towards you anyway, so why do you care?

Some of this thread has yielded some interesting contributions. You might not be aware of how much like the who you seem when you get vague and perseverate.

[Anonymous]

Robert Bruce,

Do you still rape goats?  You still have not answered the question.