The smoking gun - do survivors lie?

[DannyB II]

It's kidnapping when there is (and I believe psy addressed this) no due process for the minor. No lawyer. No phone call. No miranda. No rights at all. I don't know about in other states,  But a minor here, has none of these rights even when arrested by the police. No bail  Nothing.It's  like saying the repo man isn't a professional car thief. It's legal. The police should be handling these jobs. Or at least someone with more accountability. than these weekend worriors and wanna' be's. If it walks like a duck......

So if the judicial system says it is not kidnapping, why are you calling it kidnapping. If escort services are legal why are you saying there not.
So because Psy says it is kidnapping because there is no due process, no lawyer, no phone call, no miranda, that means it is kidnapping. Is this what you are telling us. OK. One problem though the judicial system doesn't think the same way Psy does.

[DannyB II]

Gulag is the best word the english language has to describe these places.  All of us have been through one of these places Whooter, unlike you, so why do you steadfastly refuse to acknowledge our inside perspective?

But if you are trying to communicate with people who have not been through one of these places then your vocabulary looks foolish.  Amongst yourselves it seems to work fine, but if you are looking for credibility from people who have never been in a program you need to use different words unless you want to be viewed as childish.

Ok, ok....you've given your little PSA.  Now you can pat yourself on the back for explaining to us and others who have been abused in such programs why we won't be believed by the likes of you.

Whoa, wait a second, come on waaaaait......you are not believed by many folks here. Look around when you start talking people scatter. This board becomes a ghost town, you push people away.
The only folks I read are sock puppets from DJ and Frodo's negative one liners.

[none-ya]

Look, if you would rather not argue semantics or verbage, Does "taken by force against one's will" While not being placed under arrest.  serves the same meaning. Just kinda' rolls off the tounge huh?

[Whooter]

If the minor is not under arrest, then why can't he just say no! I ain't goin'. Because he has no rights to start with. If he dosen't go with the transporter, or won't get on the school bus, the the parents should call the cops.By the time it got to court, maybe he could get a lawyer or some sort of advocate.  to represent his(or her) wishes. problem is, kids don't have money. Nobody is lining up to represent children. It ain't safe to be a kid anywhere, anymore. And until things change. they'll just keep lining up (for a fee) to take the kids away. = LEGAL KIDNAPPING!

I guess the survivor would not be lying if there was a term "Legal Kidnapping" but I have never heard of this.  I understand what you are saying, none-ya, but I think the term "escort Service" would be the more accurate description.  



...

[DannyB II]

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.

[none-ya]

Whooter wrote;
"Why make up stories of being kidnapped"

Hey keeper, his question came from the original post. And Iv'e been answering ever since. Kidnapping is not lying. I just posted this a minute ago and you saw fit to remove it? what gives? Maybe we have a problem, But im still on point.

[RobertBruce]

Whooter are you ever going to be able back up your claims? Honestly John just provide a single post that backs up your nonsense about abuse survivors lying. Just one.

[Ursus]

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?"

[DannyB II]

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.

[Shadyacres]

I have no need to embellish or lie about my time in the program.  I have a life now and I am happy with it, despite their efforts.  The programs, on the other hand, and all who depend on them for their livelihood, have a very obvious need to maintain credibility.  This is why they change their names every couple of years and keep moving from one jurisdiction to another, with a few exceptions where there is particularly lax oversight.
   These programs still use a nearly identical “behavior modification” model to the one used by the place I was in 25 years ago.  The programs have worked very hard to conceal this fact from the public.  They have created their own language, like other human rights violators have done in the past, to soften public perception of their transgressions  ( re-education doesn’t sound that bad, like some kind of school, right? ).  
   So now we have the term; “escort services”, which tells the hearer nothing about what the services actually do.  Paid abductors would be better.  Or just goons.  


noun |?es?kôrt|
a person, vehicle, ship, or aircraft, or a group of these, accompanying another for protection, security, or as a mark of rank : a police escort | he was driven away under armed escort.
• a man who accompanies a woman to a particular social event.
• a person, typically a woman, who may be hired to accompany someone socially : [as adj. ] an escort agency.
verb |i?skôrt| [ trans. ]
accompany (someone or something) somewhere, esp. for protection or security, or as a mark of rank : Shiona escorted Janice to the door | the shipment was escorted by armed patrol boats.
ORIGIN late 16th cent. (originally denoting a body of armed men escorting travelers): from French escorte (noun), escorter (verb), from Italian scorta, feminine past participle of scorgere ‘to conduct, guide,’ based on Latin ex- ‘out of’ + corrigere ‘set right’ (see correct ).


   Please note there is nothing in this definition about “accompanying people” against their will.  This industry has also co-opted the words “boarding school”,
“drug treatment center” and “boot camp” into their web of deceit and greed.  The facilities now bearing these names, where they forcibly re-educate captive teenagers in a manner that would be strikingly reminiscent to a POW from the Korean war, bear no resemblance to their original definitions.

[Ursus]

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.

[Ursus]

To summarize (in case ya found the linguistic analysis too boring   ):

• Whooter titled this thread with a question based on a false or, at the least, arguable premise.
• He supplied rationalization for said premise with a contestable statement that he offered as fact.
• I requested proof or evidence that said statement was, indeed, "fact."
• Whooter has yet to supply it. He has ignored my request.

I have no quibble, Danny, with your observation that people on "Facebook, Myspace, Twitter and the dozens of others sites dedicated to this industry" are calling each other liars, fabricators, equivocators, embellishers, and various other descriptives too colorful to repeat. I just don't find it overly pertinent to the above request, namely proof or evidence that "it is widely established" that kids "who did not do well [vis a vis their program(s)] have a need to embellish or lie."

[DannyB II]

To summarize (in case ya found the linguistic analysis too boring   ):

• Whooter titled this thread with a question based on a false or, at the least, arguable premise.
• He supplied rationalization for said premise with a contestable statement that he offered as fact.
• I requested proof or evidence that said statement was, indeed, "fact."
• Whooter has yet to supply it. He has ignored my request.

I have no quibble, Danny, with your observation that people on "Facebook, Myspace, Twitter and the dozens of others sites dedicated to this industry" are calling each other liars, fabricators, equivocators, embellishers, and various other descriptives too colorful to repeat. I just don't find it overly pertinent to the above request, namely proof or evidence that "it is widely established" that kids "who did not do well [vis a vis their program(s)] have a need to embellish or lie."

Thanks, I can not at this point establish that all kids who did not do well in programs, embellish and lie either and make this a fact. Other then to say that, it appears most of the squabbling on these various sites is about how they did in their programs.
I do understand your comments here about the intent of this post. Point taken.
Yet I will say this, I can understand his defense to his character.

[DannyB II]

I have no need to embellish or lie about my time in the program.  I have a life now and I am happy with it, despite their efforts.  The programs, on the other hand, and all who depend on them for their livelihood, have a very obvious need to maintain credibility.  This is why they change their names every couple of years and keep moving from one jurisdiction to another, with a few exceptions where there is particularly lax oversight.
   These programs still use a nearly identical “behavior modification” model to the one used by the place I was in 25 years ago.  The programs have worked very hard to conceal this fact from the public.  They have created their own language, like other human rights violators have done in the past, to soften public perception of their transgressions  ( re-education doesn’t sound that bad, like some kind of school, right? ).  
   So now we have the term; “escort services”, which tells the hearer nothing about what the services actually do.  Paid abductors would be better.  Or just goons.  


noun |?es?kôrt|
a person, vehicle, ship, or aircraft, or a group of these, accompanying another for protection, security, or as a mark of rank : a police escort | he was driven away under armed escort.
• a man who accompanies a woman to a particular social event.
• a person, typically a woman, who may be hired to accompany someone socially : [as adj. ] an escort agency.
verb |i?skôrt| [ trans. ]
accompany (someone or something) somewhere, esp. for protection or security, or as a mark of rank : Shiona escorted Janice to the door | the shipment was escorted by armed patrol boats.
ORIGIN late 16th cent. (originally denoting a body of armed men escorting travelers): from French escorte (noun), escorter (verb), from Italian scorta, feminine past participle of scorgere ‘to conduct, guide,’ based on Latin ex- ‘out of’ + corrigere ‘set right’ (see correct ).


   Please note there is nothing in this definition about “accompanying people” against their will.  This industry has also co-opted the words “boarding school”,
“drug treatment center” and “boot camp” into their web of deceit and greed.  The facilities now bearing these names, where they forcibly re-educate captive teenagers in a manner that would be strikingly reminiscent to a POW from the Korean war, bear no resemblance to their original definitions.

Shady, just demonstrated the exact point Whooter was making. Of course children are being taken against their will, especially if they are harmful to themselves or others.
There is not a "BootCamp" in this country that calls itself a Boarding School. BootCamps were primarily run by the States Detention Services/ Jails/ Juvie.
Shady is doing this because he is angry right now and believes he is irritating, Whooter or myself. This is the premise of Whooter's thread. Why? Do survivors lie and embellish. Well as Shady demonstrated right here because they get angry at another poster for not agreeing with them and they want to attack this person.  

[Anne Bonney]

If the minor is not under arrest, then why can't he just say no! I ain't goin'. Because he has no rights to start with. If he dosen't go with the transporter, or won't get on the school bus, the the parents should call the cops.By the time it got to court, maybe he could get a lawyer or some sort of advocate.  to represent his(or her) wishes. problem is, kids don't have money. Nobody is lining up to represent children. It ain't safe to be a kid anywhere, anymore. And until things change. they'll just keep lining up (for a fee) to take the kids away. = LEGAL KIDNAPPING!

I guess the survivor would not be lying if there was a term "Legal Kidnapping" but I have never heard of this.  I understand what you are saying, none-ya, but I think the term "escort Service" would be the more accurate description.  

Escort service sounds like a call girl operation.

It also doesn't truly describe what happens to these kids.  They're not gently escorted by some nice people to a nice place.  They're usually ripped from their beds in the very early hours of the morning, sometimes handcuffed, screamed at and told that they're going to this "place" and that they'd better not fight.  That's not exactly "escorting" yet you guys get away with calling it that.