It has been established throughout the Troubled Teen industry that the graduates and non graduates who did not do well have a need to embellish or lie about their time spent at one or more of the programs.
Has it been established? Where? Please cite your source or proof for that presumption!
The only source *I've* come across for that kind of statement has been from EdCons and program proponents trying to pooh-pooh the credibility of abuse accounts. And those folk have a pretty compelling incentive to protect their profits.
Really is Facebook, Myspace, Twitter and the dozens of others sites dedicated to this industry not count, Ursus. Yes, it has been established in the debates on this Web Site and the dozens upon dozens of other sites. All the interested reader has to do is read the various opinions on the sites. Most of the opinions are from kids that went through the programs.
What are you trying to say, Danny? Are you trying to say: that because the allegedly offending vernacular is used not only on fornits, but also on "Facebook, Myspace, Twitter and the dozens of others sites dedicated to this industry" ... that this is further proof that these "kids" must be "lying?"
I thought what I said was very clear, read the comments from the various sites kids/adults from programs are calling other kids/adults from programs (most of the time they know one another, they are from the same program and time) liars and fabricators. They are challenging stories for there truthfulness.
I just wondered if you were going to acknowledge this information or act like it does not exist. Because it does. They are not EdConns, parents or ex-program kids/adults promoting programs for a certain program or Corp. These posters have no incentive to protect profits and they are not trying to pooh-pooh the credibility of abuse accounts.
Well... your observations of human behavior have been my observations as well, but... these are not integrally pertinent to the point I was making. People calling each other liars and fabricators does not establish that any of the parties to the discussion are liars or fabricators, although some of them may well be. About the only
safe conclusion you can draw from such observations,
barring any additional information, is that folk are disagreeing with one another.
The point I was making has to do with the thematic structure of this thread, namely, how Whooter set it up.
The thread title was phrased as a question: "
Why do Survivors need to Lie?" The question relies on a premise, namely, that "
survivors need to lie." Of course, Whooter did not make said premise as the title of the thread, 'cuz he knew that such a thread would have been relegated to OFFA right pronto, since it's basically just inflammatory rhetoric. So, he phrased it as a question, hoping folks
not in the know would just blindly accept the underlying premise, and those
in the know would be put on the defensive.
Whooter used the first sentence of the OP as the vessel of proof and/or rationalization for making the thread: "
It has been established throughout the Troubled Teen industry that the graduates and non graduates who did not do well have a need to embellish or lie about their time spent at one or more of the programs."
The phrasing of the opening sentence suggests that this statement is a
widely accepted fact. Perhaps even one supported by empirical research and/or analysis. It is NOT. And yet, a certain group of people do seem to tout such claims or similar as "statements of fact," and they are usually EdCons and program proponents. Why? Because it is a marketing strategy.
While there are certainly many who tout claims that kids unhappy with their program experience are liars, fabricators and/or embellishers, it is usually quite clear, from the context if not the words themselves, that this is
their belief or opinion. And...
that's a somewhat different kettle of fish.
