American Greed

[Antigen]

Just saw an ad for this new series. I wonder if we could get the producers to take an interest in the troubled parent industry scam?

http://www.cnbc.com/id/18057119

[Whooter]

Just saw an ad for this new series. I wonder if we could get the producers to take an interest in the troubled parent industry scam?

http://www.cnbc.com/id/18057119

I think it would be more likely (and interesting) to have them do a series or single show on specific Treatment centers which scammed parents or didn’t provide what they said they would.  The industry (as a whole) has been proven much too effective to be shown in a negative light in my opinion.  But some individuals could be dug up and exposed as frauds I am sure.



...

[Antigen]

 The industry (as a whole) has been proven much too effective to be shown in a negative light in my opinion.  But some individuals could be dug up and exposed as frauds I am sure.



...

Well this just shows how cloistered you are, Whooter.

This is what I just sent.

From - Sat Jan 23 13:43:11 2010
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 2010 13:43:08 -0500
From: ginger <GMcNulty@Fornits.com>
To: http://thestraights.com/
At the above link, Mel Sembler and Miller Newton are both interesting
characters who, in my opinion, well fit the profile of your subjects.
Newton is probably the more eccentric of the two and less commercially
successful while Sembler has been appointed Ambassador twice (both Bush
admins) and had an extravagant embassy building built and named after
him before stepping down from that appointment.

Here's a fairly good run down of Sembler's career.
http://www.thestraights.com/melsembler/index.htm

There are many, many others. You could profile an education consultant.
Sue Scheff is a great example of that. Here's an excellent source for
background information on her http://www.sueschefftruth.com/

It's endless, really. I've been hosting a forum site on this topic for
the last 10 years or so. Literally thousands of victims as well as
advocates of the industry can be found through my site http://fornits.com/

I hope you'll take a few moments to consider this story idea. You would
be doing the public a great service by helping to raise a "hew and cry"
over this particular variety of scammers. And, to boot, you'd help a
whole lot of former victims of these sadistic lunatics sleep better at
night knowing that our tormentors are being exposed for the frauds they
are instead of being appointed to high government office or featured as
heroes on daytime talk shows.

Please feel free to call or write me if I can be of any help to you.

--
Ever your dedicated inactivist,
Ginger McNulty
[phone]
return undef() if /coercion/i

[Whooter]

Well, actually we both must cloistered, you went with my advice by giving specific targets instead of targeting the whole industry.  I think it was smart not mentioning Aspen Education (for example) or the industry as a whole because it would have led them to studies showing success.

I personally think it was a mistake, though, to mention Sue Scheff.  They typically do background research before considering each topic and this will just expose you/fornits as a hate group which is well documented with SS when your site was used to attack her.  I would try to separate yourself from that whole mess in the future.  CNBC isn’t going to want to get involved in personal vendettas.  Or maybe persuade psy to re submit the letter leaving this out.



...

[psy]

Well, actually we both must cloistered, you went with my advice by giving specific targets instead of targeting the whole industry.  I think it was smart not mentioning Aspen Education (for example) or the industry as a whole because it would have led them to studies showing success.

I personally think it was a mistake, though, to mention Sue Scheff.  They typically do background research before considering each topic and this will just expose you/fornits as a hate group which is well documented with SS when your site was used to attack her.

Hold up now.  You know that she attacked us.  You're just saying that to be provocative and you know it.  That is well documented. We only reported the truth about the event and her little kids for cash career.  If a reporter digs deep enough, he or she will discover that Sue Scheff is not at all who she portrays herself as.  It's a good idea to mention it (though it was not my idea).  If the reporter is compentent, he/she will find the truth.  If not... why the fuck would we want an incompetent reporter writing about us anyway?

[Anonymous]

Very compelling the whole read. Many great ideas.
Whooter your feedback is inspiring, keeps folks on
there toes. I just hope it has integrity on it's own.
Not bought......

[Whooter]

Well, actually we both must cloistered, you went with my advice by giving specific targets instead of targeting the whole industry.  I think it was smart not mentioning Aspen Education (for example) or the industry as a whole because it would have led them to studies showing success.

I personally think it was a mistake, though, to mention Sue Scheff.  They typically do background research before considering each topic and this will just expose you/fornits as a hate group which is well documented with SS when your site was used to attack her.

Hold up now.  You know that she attacked us.  You're just saying that to be provocative and you know it.  That is well documented. We only reported the truth about the event and her little kids for cash career.  If a reporter digs deep enough, he or she will discover that Sue Scheff is not at all who she portrays herself as.  It's a good idea to mention it (though it was not my idea).  If the reporter is compentent, he/she will find the truth.  If not... why the fuck would we want an incompetent reporter writing about us anyway?

All I am saying is it is unnecessary and actually hurts fornits’ credibility in my opinion.  I don’t think it will come across as SS being the evil one going after fornits for no reason out of the blue.  It will most probably read as fornits harassing SS from the shadows to the point that she has to spend her own money defending her name against a fringe hate site.

I find it interesting that you ignore studies because the members of the firm have a background/ education in the industry they are studying but turn around and quote Maia Szalavitz who openly takes a stand against the industry and profits from it.

Plus you can tell Maia is biased because the article makes it seem like Bock wasn’t guilty because her house got destroyed.  The judge isn’t going to reward a person millions of dollars because the other guy cant make it that day.  The judge read the law suit and the defense notes and made a judgment based on the facts (not on who was in the court room, its not a softball game).  Both parties don’t need to be there.  Sure maybe Bock could have had a shot if she was there with some new information the judge didn’t have, but she wasn’t and there wasn’t any.  It isn’t Sue S fault.



...

[psy]

Well, actually we both must cloistered, you went with my advice by giving specific targets instead of targeting the whole industry.  I think it was smart not mentioning Aspen Education (for example) or the industry as a whole because it would have led them to studies showing success.

I personally think it was a mistake, though, to mention Sue Scheff.  They typically do background research before considering each topic and this will just expose you/fornits as a hate group which is well documented with SS when your site was used to attack her.

Hold up now.  You know that she attacked us.  You're just saying that to be provocative and you know it.  That is well documented. We only reported the truth about the event and her little kids for cash career.  If a reporter digs deep enough, he or she will discover that Sue Scheff is not at all who she portrays herself as.  It's a good idea to mention it (though it was not my idea).  If the reporter is compentent, he/she will find the truth.  If not... why the fuck would we want an incompetent reporter writing about us anyway?

All I am saying is it is unnecessary and actually hurts fornits’ credibility in my opinion.  I don’t think it will come across as SS being the evil one going after fornits for no reason out of the blue.  It will most probably read as fornits harassing SS from the shadows to the point that she has to spend her own money defending her name against a fringe hate site.

That is very possible, but even you know that's not the truth, and there is objective truth.  Like I said, If a journalist is not competent enough to dig to the bottom of things and find out the truth, it's probably not worth having such a journalist write about us.

I find it interesting that you ignore studies because the members of the firm have a background/ education in the industry they are studying but turn around and quote Maia Szalavitz who openly takes a stand against the industry and profits from it.

You might pretend otherwise but you know as well as I do that those studies, such as Behrens, are bunk.  We could debate this yet again but I think it's better dome in another thread.  You have your views, I have mine, and ginger has hers.  If you wish to inform this journalist about such "studies", go ahead.  We'll follow in kind.  I think from an objective viewpoint the truth of the matter is apparent: Behrens is not and was never a neutral party.  As such, her "studies" are most likely to be viewed as little more than marketing...  As Ursus pointed out, very similar to those the tobacco industry conducted.

Plus you can tell Maia is biased because the article makes it seem like Bock wasn’t guilty because her house got destroyed.

She called somebody a "crook, con, and a fraud".  You really think that's worth 11 million dollars?  That's clear cut opinion, and as such is protected speech.  My lawyers found considerable case law to support that, since I was sued for similar.  If Carey Bock was in court to defend herself, it would have been shown to be such.  The circumstances surrounding her absence are too complicated to elaborate here, but if you dig deep and objectively, you'll probably conclude as I did that it was not her fault.

The judge isn’t going to reward a person millions of dollars because the other guy cant make it that day.

When one side doesn't get to defend themselves, things like that often happen.  It's not so much up the judge.  IIRC, In this case it was up to the jury who was told that the facts of the case were already decided and all they had to do was deliberate on punitive damages.  In other words, they were told she was guilty and all they had to or were allowed to deliberate upon was her punishment.

The judge read the law suit and the defense notes and made a judgment based on the facts (not on who was in the court room, its not a softball game).  Both parties don’t need to be there.  Sure maybe Bock could have had a shot if she was there with some new information the judge didn’t have, but she wasn’t and there wasn’t any.  It isn’t Sue S fault.

Oh but it very well might have been, but that's another long story which has been touched on in other threads.

[Whooter]

Just going to respond to this first (not meant to derail) but feel it is important.

You might pretend otherwise but you know as well as I do that those studies, such as Behrens, are bunk. We could debate this yet again but I think it's better dome in another thread. You have your views, I have mine, and ginger has hers. If you wish to inform this journalist about such "studies", go ahead. We'll follow in kind. I think from an objective viewpoint the truth of the matter is apparent: Behrens is not and was never a neutral party. As such, her "studies" are most likely to be viewed as little more than marketing... As Ursus pointed out, very similar to those the tobacco industry conducted.

No, psy, you are biased and you are wrong.  Unless you can show that someone did something unethical then the study has to be accepted,  They are a research firm. There is nothing unethical about having people familiar and educated in the industry they are studying.  The people Ursus mentioned were being paid by the tobacco industry while they were making the study on the effects of tobacco smoking …big difference.

Research firms specialize in specific areas of research and always recruit from the industry they want to study.  They want heart doctors to be part of and conduct heart studies…. Medical doctors trained in psychology and pharmaceutical manufacturing to conduct drug studies.  In order to conduct a proper study you need to have people who are familiar with the industry they are studying.  We both know this.  Should we ignore the heart studies because one of the members of the research panel studied medicine?  Or worked in a hospital?

Again, I understand that there is no way you (as well as many here) can accept positive outcome studies on the industry because it would blow your whole theory that all TBS’s are ineffective right out of the water.  So I never expect you to ever accept these studies.  But I will continue to point this out to you.  I know your logic agrees with me but your passion for your cause prevents you from seeing it.



...

[Whooter]

She called somebody a "crook, con, and a fraud". You really think that's worth 11 million dollars? That's clear cut opinion, and as such is protected speech. My lawyers found considerable case law to support that, since I was sued for similar. If Carey Bock was in court to defend herself, it would have been shown to be such. The circumstances surrounding her absence are too complicated to elaborate here, but if you dig deep and objectively, you'll probably conclude as I did that it was not her fault.

No I don’t think it is worth a dime.  I would be broke if people hauled me to court each time I said that. I have settled out of court a few times for things I said in public and I don’t regret I said them.  I actually don’t think that Bock should have lost that case based on the evidence that I saw.  And I agree with the outcome of your case with Benchmark as well.  But I don’t think that is a negative towards Sue Scheff either.  She couldn’t control the outcome and took a shot against this other person.
Just to be clear, I am not a Sue Scheff fan.



...

[psy]

The main difference in any of your analogies, Whooter, is motive.  Heart doctors do not have a motive to skew the results of any research.  Behrens, as an educational constant (who profits off referrals) very much has an interest, both financial an ideological, in the outcome of a study concerning a main player in the industry.  Furthermore, as you yourself have admitted, the study concerning Aspen was paid for directly by Aspen.  If you don't see a problem with that, fine.  I do, and I suspect others might as well.

Let's drop this since we've discussed it many times elsewhere

[psy]

She couldn’t control the outcome and took a shot against this other person.

No, but like Benchmark she filed suit with malice (although unlike Benchmark she "may" have rigged the results by making an "agreement" with the party that was funding Carey's original attorneys).

I do appreciate your views on the Benchmark case, though, and I thank you for that, as well as your sympathies towards Carey.

PS: I adore your new avatar.  I must admit you do have decent taste in art.

[Whooter]

The main difference in any of your analogies, Whooter, is motive.  Heart doctors do not have a motive to skew the results of any research.  Behrens, as an educational constant (who profits off referrals) very much has an interest, both financial an ideological, in the outcome of a study concerning a main player in the industry.  Furthermore, as you yourself have admitted, the study concerning Aspen was paid for directly by Aspen.  If you don't see a problem with that, fine.  I do, and I suspect others might as well.

Let's drop this since we've discussed it many times elsewhere

I agree this isn't the thread for this.  But I have to say I would discard the study results myself if it were shown that she is profiting from referrals at the same time she is running a study or after the study even.  This was not shown in your link (unless I missed it).



...

[Whooter]

She couldn’t control the outcome and took a shot against this other person.

No, but like Benchmark she filed suit with malice (although unlike Benchmark she "may" have rigged the results by making an "agreement" with the party that was funding Carey's original attorneys).

I do appreciate your views on the Benchmark case, though, and I thank you for that, as well as your sympathies towards Carey.

PS: I adore your new avatar.  I must admit you do have decent taste in art.

Thank you psy, I wish I had a touch for framing.  I stink at it and have received poor advice.  I have a tough time visualizing ahead of time what would work and it gets expensive to reframe several times.

I think Dania is great.  I have several but here is one of my favorites:

Mad Violinist



...