Author Topic: Will Che be honest?  (Read 6782 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
Re: Will Che be honest?
« Reply #45 on: September 27, 2009, 04:47:05 PM »
Quote
Remorse for being a program parent or proponant could lead you to some insight, though.

Remorse for abusing children could lead Che Gookin to some insight, though.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
will you ever evolve from this lowly troll form?
« Reply #46 on: September 27, 2009, 04:50:14 PM »
Perseverating program troll,that discussion was had and with very candid disclosure.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Antigen

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 12992
  • Karma: +3/-0
    • View Profile
    • http://wwf.Fornits.com/
Re: Will Che be honest?
« Reply #47 on: September 27, 2009, 05:13:40 PM »
Quote from: "Guest"
Quote from: "Guest"
See how cultists act when one their own leaves the fold and speaks out?  This whole thread is ridiculous.  If Che weren't honest, you wouldn't know that he had been a counselor or the details of his program days.  Che confessed, has done a hell of a lot of penance and apologized.  Che's got guts, which is more than can be said for the spineless programee eunuch who started this thread.  Why berate Che for what he did as a counselor when it's obvious he had a cathartic moment and made a decision to speak out against the TTI.  The decision to post on Fornits and acknowledge his experience as a counselor was a ballsy move considering how the members of this biker bar feel about staff.  He's still here, which says a lot.  

That's honest.

This is very true.

I'm not even sure I'll even finish reading this thread. It really is the same shit over and over again.

I don't even know if the troll is a conscious cult supporter or just another among the walking wounded. I identify strongly with all three types, having played all three roles to varying degrees at different times.

To be perfectly honest, anyone who graduated or nearly graduated or even acted on the hope of graduating played the staff role to some degree. Some more or less than others, but it was absolutely required by the cult (whichever brand, location or time-frame) that we all take part in abusing the others. If we didn't then we didn't get things like a shot at the door, adequate food, rest, hygene... access to the toilet... ya know, the 'privileges' they held out to make us comply.

There are some few among us who never ever bought in at all and were purely victims. Those folks don't seem to carry a grudge nearly so much as the rest of us who did buy in somewhat.

 :soapbox:

That's all I got to say. Now, can't we all just get along?
 :-*
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
"Don\'t let the past remind us of what we are not now."
~ Crosby Stills Nash & Young, Sweet Judy Blue Eyes

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
Re: Will Che be honest?
« Reply #48 on: September 27, 2009, 07:36:35 PM »
I don't think people would support a program owner if he/she confessed to abuse towards innocent children like Che Gookin did.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Antigen

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 12992
  • Karma: +3/-0
    • View Profile
    • http://wwf.Fornits.com/
Re: Will Che be honest?
« Reply #49 on: September 27, 2009, 08:13:54 PM »
Quote from: "Did"
I don't think people would support a program owner if he/she confessed to abuse towards innocent children like Che Gookin did.

Oh, I think I could hold my nose and pull it off. Think about it. It would be priceless! Imagine if, say, Lichfield or Bucci or Gauld or Sembler (I'd settle for Riddile, which is much more likely in my view) or some other were to quit the biz, get an honest job and then spend years speaking out and acting out against similar programs. I don't mean just one 'mia culpa' PR statement and then fade to black. I mean if any of those guys had the sack to do what Aaron has been doing? I don't see it ever happening. But just imagine the impact.  :jawdrop:
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
"Don\'t let the past remind us of what we are not now."
~ Crosby Stills Nash & Young, Sweet Judy Blue Eyes

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
Re: Will Che be honest?
« Reply #50 on: September 27, 2009, 10:12:45 PM »
Why was Che Gookin terminated?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
Re: Will Che be honest?
« Reply #51 on: September 27, 2009, 10:24:18 PM »
You could apply this to Che Gookin abusing children.

Why Kids Who Get Spanked Have Lower IQs
Time.com


By JOHN CLOUD John Cloud – Sun Sep 27, 10:10 am ET

The debate over spanking goes back many years, but the essential question often evades discussion: does spanking actually work? In the short term, yes. You can correct immediate misbehavior with a slap or two on the rear-end or hand. But what about the long-term impact? Can spanking lead to permanent, hidden scars on children years later?

On Friday, a sociologist from the University of New Hampshire, Murray Straus, presented a paper at the International Conference on Violence, Abuse and Trauma, in San Diego, suggesting that corporal punishment does leave a long-lasting mark - in the form of lower IQ. Straus, who is 83 and has been studying corporal punishment since 1969, found that kids who were physically punished had up to a five-point lower IQ score than kids who weren't - the more children were spanked, the lower their IQ - and that the effect could be seen not only in individual children, but across entire nations. Among 32 countries Straus studied, in those where spanking was accepted, the average IQ of the survey population was lower than in nations where spanking was rare, the researcher says.

In the U.S., Straus and his colleague Mallie Paschall of the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation, looked at 1,510 children - 806 kids ages 2 to 4, and 704 ages 5 to 9 - and found that roughly three-quarters had endured some kind of corporal punishment in the previous two weeks, according to interviews with the mothers. Researchers measured the children's IQ initially, then again four years later. Those kids who hadn't been spanked in the initial survey period scored significantly better on intelligence and achievement tests than those who had been hit. Among the 2-to-4-year-olds, the difference in IQ was five points; among the older kids, there was a 2.8-point gap. That association held after taking into account parental education, income and other environmental factors, says Straus.

So how might getting spanked on the butt actually affect the workings of the brain? Straus notes that being spanked or hit is associated with fright and stress; kids who experience that kind of trauma have a harder time focusing and learning. In another recent paper that he coauthored with Paschall, Straus writes that previous research has found that even after you control for parental education and occupation, children of parents who use corporal punishment are less likely than other kids to graduate from college.

Still, it's not clear if spanking causes lower cognitive ability or if lower cognitive ability might somehow lead to more spanking. It's quite possible that kids with poor reasoning skills misbehave more often and therefore elicit harsher punishment. "It could be that lower IQ causes parents to get exasperated and hit more," Straus says, although he notes that a recent Duke University study of low-income families found that toddlers' low mental ability did not predict an increase in spanking. (The study did find, however, that kids who were spanked at age 1 displayed more aggressive behavior by age 2, and scored lower on cognitive development tests by age 3.) "I believe the relationship [between corporal punishment and IQ] is probably bidirectional," says Straus. "There has to be something the kid is doing that's wrong that leads to corporal punishment. The problem is, when the parent does that, it seems to have counterproductive results to cognitive ability in the long term."

One problem with Straus' data is that some of the parents who tended to spank may also have been engaging in actual physical abuse of their children. Researchers define corporal punishment as physical force intended to cause pain - but not injury - for the purpose of correcting a child's behavior, not simply hurting him. Studies have shown that very few parents who use corporal punishment also beat their kids, but Straus can't rule out the possibility that his data is confounded by the presence of child abuse, which past research has shown to affect victims' development.

The preponderance of evidence points away from corporal punishment, which the European Union and the United Nations have recommended against, but the data suggest that most parents, especially those in the U.S., still spank their kids. Based on his international data, collected by surveying more than 17,000 college students in various countries, Straus found that countries with higher GDP tended to be those where corporal punishment was used less often. In the U.S., the tendency to hit also varies with income, along with geography and culture; it's most common among African-American families, Southern families, parents who were spanked as children themselves and those who identify themselves as conservative Christians.

But overall the percentage of parents who spank has been steadily declining. Straus says that in 1968, 94% of Americans told surveyors they agreed with spanking. By 2005, the proportion who said it is "sometimes O.K. to spank a child" had fallen to 72%, although most researchers believe the actual incidence of corporal punishment is higher.

The practice has its defenders, and Straus himself admits, with chagrin in his voice, that he spanked his own son. In the 1990s, the American Academy of Pediatrics underwent a bitter fight before finally declaring in 1998 that "corporal punishment is of limited effectiveness and has potentially deleterious side effects."

Sometimes spanking seems like the only way to get through to an unruly toddler. But the price for fixing his poor short-term conduct might be an even more troublesome outcome in the future.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
Re: Will Che be honest?
« Reply #52 on: September 27, 2009, 10:41:23 PM »
^^ Is there a link? or did your parents spank you?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
Re: Will Che be honest?
« Reply #53 on: September 27, 2009, 11:30:02 PM »
Quote
Antigen wrote:
Che can be a bit intemperate at times....
Guest wrote:
Che should have been thrown in jail.

The list will get bigger over time.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
Re: Will Che be honest?
« Reply #54 on: September 28, 2009, 10:45:39 AM »
I wonder if Che will  disclose why he was terminated from Paint Rock Valley.  He has not told you guys the whole truth.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
Re: Will Che be honest?
« Reply #55 on: September 28, 2009, 10:57:25 AM »
What is the whole truth?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
Re: Will Che be honest?
« Reply #56 on: September 28, 2009, 12:39:22 PM »
Quote
Let's play the CASE.net Game!

Postby Che Gookin » Today, 14:13

Somewhere here on fornits well proxied posted a list of CALO employees. Wouldn't it be fun if we used Missouri's free case.net website to do background checks on them all?

Who wants to go first?

i wonder if "well proxied" is Che Gookin other user name?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
Re: Will Che be honest?
« Reply #57 on: September 28, 2009, 12:47:27 PM »
^ So does Ken Huey. That to has been covered in past conversations.
Of course, you're not really interested in that. You just want to try to
insinuate with these questions without actually letting anything like
the answers interrupt your agenda...
Here's one of my own...I wonder if this guy trolling Che Gookin can see
how obvious his motives are and does he notice that undermines this whole
stupid little angle, he's trying to work?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
Re: Will Che be honest?
« Reply #58 on: September 28, 2009, 01:36:34 PM »
Quote
i wonder if "well proxied" is Che Gookin other user name?

Che Gookin will not admit that "well proxied" is his other screen name.  It would be good to hear a response from him.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Che Gookin

  • Global Moderator
  • Newbie
  • *****
  • Posts: 4241
  • Karma: +11/-3
    • View Profile
Re: Will Che be honest?
« Reply #59 on: September 28, 2009, 06:52:58 PM »
Quote from: "cowinky-dink?"
^ So does Ken Huey. That to has been covered in past conversations.
Of course, you're not really interested in that. You just want to try to
insinuate with these questions without actually letting anything like
the answers interrupt your agenda...
Here's one of my own...I wonder if this guy trolling Che Gookin can see
how obvious his motives are and does he notice that undermines this whole
stupid little angle, he's trying to work?

This sort of shit happens whenever a fornits fan steps on the toes of some programmie. The funny part though that the programmies forget, repeatedly, is that in their quest to smear shit all over everything they are putting their little pet torturefarm on the front burner again and again.

So yeah, if they wanna troll, let them. It only helps us in the long run.

Is well proxied my sock? I already answered that question on another thread. Nice try KKKen.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »