« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6   Go Down

Author Topic: INSIDE EDITION  (Read 11598 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
INSIDE EDITION
« Reply #60 on: September 26, 2003, 01:21:00 PM »
You must be the nit pickinest person I have ever run across.
If you went in to a library, and they have a mear 10 books to what should be hundreds or even thousands - don't you think you might say to someone - that darn library hasn't got any books!

And if the comment in question is about school books - then there weren't any of those either.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
Logged

Offline Carey

  • Posts: 826
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
INSIDE EDITION
« Reply #61 on: September 26, 2003, 03:34:00 PM »
Quote
If you went in to a library, and they have a mear 10 books to what should be hundreds or even thousands - don't you think you might say to someone - that darn library hasn't got any books!


No, accuracy is important to me!  If I only saw 10 books on the shelf, then I would say there were only 10 books on the shelf in the library.  (By the way, and everyone knows how much I hate Dundee, Litchfiled, Joe and the others who hurt my boys, however, one thing my boys did do at Dundee that was good was to read.  They read paper backs, but none the less, they read.)

It is kinda of like saying "I was beaten" verses "I was restrained."  There is a difference if accuracy is important to you.  Both in my opinion are abusive given the individuals (those Dundee employees who had no training) who were doing the "restraining" and/or "beating."  

So as far as Karen's Clinton statement, attempting to define "no books",  it is another testament to her inability to provide any worthwhile creditable/credible information.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
Logged

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
INSIDE EDITION
« Reply #62 on: September 26, 2003, 04:42:00 PM »
Hi Carey - from the High Impact thread it sounds like PURE was in possession of the video and that's how Inside Edition got it?  

This whole thing is confusing.  Doesn't PURE refer to behavior programs that may or may not be "good" programs?  Who knows for sure?

Is it your feeling PURE was the one that got Inside Edition to report this story?  

I'm sure if that good or bad since they refer to the same types of programs, but just aren't in the news.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
Logged

Offline Carey

  • Posts: 826
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
INSIDE EDITION
« Reply #63 on: September 26, 2003, 05:14:00 PM »
I do not know whether or not PURE had or has had a copy of the video.  

I do know how Inside Edition found out about the video, and it was not through PURE.  It was because I knew of its exisitence and I knew who owned it.  I put Inside Edition in touch with the owner.  I know that there is another news agency that also has a copy of the video.

No, PURE persay, is not to receive credit for the airing of this story.  However, there are some individuals who are on her listserv, including the owner of the video tape, that can be credited with this story being aired.

The Times Picayune and The Tico Times and two other TV broadcast shows (20/20 and a German TV station) are the only media outlets that wrote on this story without being tipped on to it by my professional contact.  

After my original trip and story in the local news paper here, I met an individual who's company works very close with the various media outlets.  This individual read my story and offered to  help me to focus the media's attention on Dundee first, and then on these programs in general.  

You see my contact would put the word out on the Associated Press Wire and all of the other news media outlets picked up on it.  He would then give them my contact name and I would in turn give the contact information out on others who were willing to talk to the press.Anyway, that is how and why the media became interested in these types of programs.

Evidently, the owner of the tape decided to release it to Inside Edition instead of saving it for the "class action."  That is what I said he should have done all along.  Evidence is evidence.  It can still be used in court.  Why keep it from the public?  I guess he understands that now.


[ This Message was edited by: Carey on 2003-09-26 14:30 ]

[ This Message was edited by: Carey on 2003-09-26 14:32 ]
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
Logged

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
INSIDE EDITION
« Reply #64 on: September 26, 2003, 05:28:00 PM »
blah blah blah

Yes, Carey we credit you. NOT. Idiot - this is not about you, your story is old news. Inside Edition was new. Your problem is your 15 minutes of fame is up. Yes,I am anon, so what.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
Logged

Offline Carey

  • Posts: 826
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
INSIDE EDITION
« Reply #65 on: September 26, 2003, 05:31:00 PM »
Quote
blah blah blah

Yes, Carey we credit you. NOT. Idiot - this is not about you, your story is old news. Inside Edition was new. Your problem is your 15 minutes of fame is up. Yes,I am anon, so what.


Can't you do better than that?  I just want to set the truth straight.  Don't you?

I don't need anon's, those with bags over their heads, to give me credit.  My boys give me credit.  That is all I need!  

[ This Message was edited by: Carey on 2003-09-26 14:36 ]
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
Logged

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
INSIDE EDITION
« Reply #66 on: September 26, 2003, 05:33:00 PM »
the video was not released by the owner. it was released by a self serving person that thought they had rights. take a break scary, it was better here without you. atleast it was productive. i hope the owner has some recourse.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
Logged

Offline Carey

  • Posts: 826
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
INSIDE EDITION
« Reply #67 on: September 26, 2003, 05:41:00 PM »
Great it's out!  That is what is important!

I thought the owner may have come to his senses, my mistake.  I did not realize he had been passing out copies.  Well someone did the right thing with the video, anyway.


Quote
atleast it was productive

How do you define productive?  Like Karen defines 'no books.'  

Quote
i hope the owner has some recourse


Why, was it sold to Inside Edition?  Is that what you mean by recourse?

[ This Message was edited by: Carey on 2003-09-26 14:44 ]

[ This Message was edited by: Carey on 2003-09-26 14:46 ]

[ This Message was edited by: Carey on 2003-09-26 14:48 ]
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
Logged

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
INSIDE EDITION
« Reply #68 on: September 26, 2003, 05:57:00 PM »
how to define productive? easy, not all this mud slinging you, scary, like to do. and actually informative stuff without sarcarism.

recourse? hopefully the owner had copyrights and has some legal recourse.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
Logged

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
INSIDE EDITION
« Reply #69 on: September 26, 2003, 06:05:00 PM »
That's funny, copyrights to a video that shows abuse.  Right!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
Logged

Offline Carey

  • Posts: 826
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
INSIDE EDITION
« Reply #70 on: September 26, 2003, 06:07:00 PM »
That was me.  What a joke, recourse on a tape that shows children being abused.  What kind of recourse?  Money?  What?  Could you please explain that?  

[ This Message was edited by: Carey on 2003-09-26 15:08 ]
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
Logged

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
INSIDE EDITION
« Reply #71 on: September 26, 2003, 06:40:00 PM »
:idea:  :eek:
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
Logged

Offline Carey

  • Posts: 826
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
INSIDE EDITION
« Reply #72 on: September 27, 2003, 01:33:00 PM »
Quote
That was me. What a joke, recourse on a tape that shows children being abused. What kind of recourse? Money? What? Could you please explain that?


Come on, answer Anon.  What kind of recouse could one have on a video that is released that shows children being abused?  

[ This Message was edited by: Carey on 2003-09-27 10:34 ]
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
Logged

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
INSIDE EDITION
« Reply #73 on: September 27, 2003, 02:22:00 PM »
Inside Edition would certainly have checked out whether they had rights to use the video, well-before airing it.  Whoever gave them the video, is responsible for the content, it's just that simple.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
Logged

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
INSIDE EDITION
« Reply #74 on: September 27, 2003, 02:55:00 PM »
Quote
On 2003-09-26 14:33:00, Anonymous wrote:

"the video was not released by the owner. it was released by a self serving person that thought they had rights. take a break scary, it was better here without you. atleast it was productive. i hope the owner has some recourse."


Anon, you seem to know who released the video to Inside Edition. If it wasn't the "owner" but some self-serving individual, how did they get a copy of the video to give to Inside Edition?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6   Go Up
« previous next »